Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly assessed the noise and disturbance impacts of the development on his property when deciding the application. There is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the grant of the permission and the planning process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a building whose owner received planning permission to convert it into holiday lettings. He complains the Council wrongly assessed the noise and disturbance impacts of the development on his property when deciding the application.
2. Mr X is concerned the development will cause noise. He says the matter has caused him and his family stress and anxiety and he is considering he may need to move house. Mr X wants the Council to seek to impose conditions to control noise and disturbance from the development, and compensation for loss of any property value proven to be caused by the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents, maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has raised issues with the Council’s planning officer’s report on the development. The Council accepts there could have been a more detailed explanation of parts of the decision. But even if there has been fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process, we will not investigate. Mr X’s core claimed injustice is that the development as permitted will cause noise and disturbance to his property. We recognise Mr X bases his concern on a previously permitted development for a similar planning purpose much closer to his property, which he says causes noise. But his concerns about noise and disturbances from the latest permission granted to a more distant property are a speculative injustice. There is insufficient evidence that the grant of planning permission has directly led to or will directly lead to the noise nuisance or disturbance injustice Mr X expects to warrant us investigating. We recognise the planning matter has caused Mr X and his family stress and worry. A nearby planning issue may understandably cause anxiety to residents. But the impacts of the planning process, even when added to the impacts of the planning decision, do not amount to a significant injustice which justifies us investigating.
6. The Council has advised that if there is noise or other disturbance reported from the use of the new development, it has powers to take action against the owner or operator of the building. If Mr X considers there is activity at the development which is causing such issues, he may report this to the Council. It would be for officers to investigate and assess the available evidence and decide what action, if any, the Council should take.
7. We note the practical remedy Mr X wants is for the Council to try to place conditions on the planning permission to control noise and disturbance from the development. The permission has been granted in its current form. To impose extra conditions on the development would require the Council to revoke the current permission. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. Mr X also wants compensation for any loss of property value proven to be caused by the development. We do not recommend compensation payments, which are possible outcomes of legal action, not an Ombudsman investigation. As explained above, any impact from the development on Mr X’s property is speculative so we would not achieve a financial remedy here. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused by the grant of permission and planning process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman