Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application relating to a development near his property. He complains the Council should not have granted the applicants planning permission. We should not investigate this complaint further. We would be unlikely to recommend a remedy, achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr B, or find evidence of fault in the decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to allow a development on land near his home. He says the Council’s approval of the planning application was wrong, and it should not have granted permission because:
• the land in question was equestrian land and not agricultural; and
• there is no safe access to the highway from the development.
2. Mr B says the development will devalue his property, cause noise nuisance, and negatively impact local wildlife.
3. Mr B would like the Council to revoke the planning application and ask the applicants to reapply for it with honest information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr B’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the telephone.
7. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Prior notification permitted development

9. Not all development requires planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
10. Some permitted development proposals require an application so the Council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.

Planning law and guidance

11. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
12. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
13. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• Views over another’s land;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
14. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
15. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.

Planning Case Officer reports

16. Details of how a council considered an application are usually found in planning case officer reports. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
17. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

Back to top

What happened

18. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
19. In March 2023, the applicants submitted prior notification to the Council. This was notification of their intention to change the use of an agricultural building on land near Mr B’s home, to flexible commercial use.
20. In June 2023, the applicants submitted a full planning application to the Council. The application was for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building, and the change of use of the existing yard area.
21. In August 2023, Mr B complained to the Council. He told it the information contained in the prior notification was false and the land and building in question was used for equestrian purposes, rather than agricultural, which has different development rights. He told the Council the full planning application continued to reference the land and building as agricultural and make other false claims.
22. In September 2023, the Council sent a complaint response to Mr B. It told him the case officer would review this information and consider on balance, whether the site had been in agricultural or equine use.
23. In early May 2024, the Council granted approval for the full planning application. The planning application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:
• A description of the proposal and site;
• A summary of planning history considered relevant;
• Comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• Planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on residential amenity, impact on ecology and biodiversity, impact on drainage and pollution, and highway safety; and
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
24. Mr B complained to the Council a couple of weeks later. He told the Council it had approved the application based on false information, and the development was not appropriate for the area. Around this time, the applicants also applied to the Council to vary the planning conditions, to extend the working hours.
25. In July 2024, the Council approved the variation to the planning conditions.
26. In August 2024, Mr B further raised concerns to the Council about light and noise issues from the site, as well as the lack of consideration for local wildlife.
27. In November 2024, Mr B complained to the Council about the approved variation to the conditions of the planning permission. He told it the variation is unacceptable and asked the Council why the planning officer would allow a change. Mr B also asked the Council what assessment had been carried out by the planning department that considered the effects of the extended working hours to neighbouring residences and business.
28. In December 2024, the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint. It told him it had considered the potential impact of the working hours, and in light of the previous planning approval, it was considered any additional movements would not be to such an extent that there would be sufficient harm to refuse the application. The Council told Mr B standard procedures had been followed, and in accordance with legislation.
29. In January 2025, Mr B contacted the Council about problems caused by the planning applicant’s vehicles and being unable to safely access the site and highway, and light issues. The Council visited the site and noted there was a small sensor light and no obvious evidence of any bright lighting on the site.
30. In February 2025, the Council sent a complaint response to Mr B. It told him it was satisfied both the planning application and investigation into his complaints had been carried out with full consideration of the evidence available.

Analysis

31. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
32. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
33. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide not to investigate or to end an investigation we have already started.
34. I should not investigate this complaint further. This is because:
• We are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to warrant a further investigation. Mr B says the development will impact highway safety, local wildlife, and will cause noise. As outlined in paragraph 23, I have seen evidence the Council considered these issues and detailed conditions to protect the impact to wildlife, the environment, and the impact of noise on local amenity.
• There is a substantial distance between Mr B’s property and the development. Because of this, further investigation is unlikely to result in a recommendation for a remedy to Mr B.
• We are also unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr B. He says he would like the Council to revoke the planning application. Only a court can quash a planning approval. It is up to the Council – not us – to decide whether to seek to revoke its planning decision.
• Questions relating to the legality of decisions are not for us to decide. Mr B says the Council should not have granted planning permission as the land was not agricultural, rather equestrian. But, it is the Council’s decision – not ours – to decide what information it needs to make its decision. We are not an appeal body or a court and so, in the absence of evidence of fault, we will not determine whether a judgement made on an individual case is correct.
• The complaint matters relating to the prior notification submitted in March 2023 are late. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. As outlined in paragraph 5, we will not usually investigate a late complaint unless there are good reasons, and I do not consider this to be the case.

Back to top

Decision

35. I have decided to end my investigation. I have not seen evidence to show a further investigation would result in a finding of fault in the Council’s decision-making process. A further investigation would also not achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman