Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to retrospectively grant planning permission for a heat pump and condenser unit at the boundary with his property. He said this resulted in danger to his family and noise nuisance. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council accepted its online planning system alerted some people to its recommended decision prematurely. It offered Mr X a suitable remedy for his time and trouble in complaining.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to retrospectively grant planning permission for a heat pump and condenser unit at the boundary with his property. I have referred to this as ‘plant equipment’ for the purposes of this statement.
2. Mr X said the Council did not properly take his objections into account, and told him it was consulting on his complaints when it had already granted planning permission.
3. Mr X said the boundary fence and wall the plant equipment rest against are damaged and could collapse. This poses a danger to his family and means they cannot use the end of their garden. The applicant also failed to put in place an acoustic cover around the plant equipment, which was required by planning permission, resulting in noise nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

9. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
10. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

11. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

12. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Site Visits

13. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

Enforcement

14. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
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.
16. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
17. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

18. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
19. Mr X’s neighbour installed plant equipment at the end of their garden without planning permission. The neighbour’s garden backs onto the end of Mr X’s garden, and his family are disturbed by noise from the equipment. Mr X is also concerned the equipment impacts the structure of the boundary wall, which is damaged. The Council’s planning enforcement team investigated, and told the neighbour to apply for planning permission.
20. The neighbour made a retrospective planning application for the plant equipment in August 2024. The plans included installing an acoustic enclosure to reduce noise, and were accompanied by a noise survey showing background noise levels.
21. The Council consulted its environmental health team and residents. Several residents, including Mr X, objected to the plans in November 2024.
22. The planning case officer emailed Mr X in January 2025 following contact from a local councillor, asking to visit Mr X about his concerns.
23. Mr X emailed the case officer on 30 January 2025 following the site visit. He attached photographs to demonstrate his objections. Mr X said this showed the real garden ambient sound is 25dB, contrary to what the developer’s report states. He said the sound is now at 59.9dB, with a constant hum from the plant equipment which affected his mental health and made his garden unusable.
24. Mr X emailed the case officer again in February 2025. He said it was important the Council considered the impact on his young children, who were already suffering from noise. He said the applicant could have avoided needed planning permission by siting the plant equipment nearer the house. He said the Council should refuse planning permission and ask the developer to re-site the plant equipment away from his property. Mr X also said the boundary fence and wall the plant equipment is sited up against are at risk of collapse, posing a danger to his children.
25. The case officer said boundary disputes are a civil matter. They confirmed they had reconsulted the environmental health team on the noise issues Mr X raised, and they would decide the application once they give their observations.
26. Mr X emailed the case officer again in February and March 2025, asking an environmental health officer to visit the site to assess the boundary fence and wall.
27. An email was sent from the Council on 12 March 2025 to a resident who had objected to the plans, advising the Council had granted planning permission.
28. Mr X emailed the case officer and environmental health team on 18 March 2025, asking them to acknowledge his emails, confirm whether environmental health was supporting the application, and asking if someone would attend the site.
29. The case officer replied on 20 March, acknowledging Mr X’s comments and confirming they were taken into consideration in the assessment process.
30. The Council granted planning permission, subject to conditions, on 25 March 2025. The case officer’s report included comments from a local councillor, water authority, environmental health officer, and objections from residents.
31. The local councillor commented about the siting of the units, designed to point any noise towards neighbours instead of the applicant. They suggested an acoustic enclosure.
32. The water authority highlighted that ambient noise in the area is very low, and likely lower than the applicant’s acoustic report. They said the plant equipment should run ‘whisper quiet’ to preserve neighbouring amenity and use of gardens.
33. Objections from residents included the issues of noise, inadequate mitigation, siting close to the boundary and away from the applicant’s own home, impact on neighbouring gardens, and risk of multiple installations along boundaries in future if the application is granted.
34. The environmental health officer recommended the applicant obtain a noise survey once the plant equipment is running, to verify compliance. This was to ensure protection of amenity.
35. The case officer was satisfied the proposed plant equipment will comply with noise regulations, when housed with an acoustic enclosure. The case officer therefore did not consider the objections on noise could be sustained. They considered the proposals were acceptable in amenity terms.
36. Planning permission included conditions on noise levels emitted from the plant equipment. It also included a condition that the plant equipment could not be used until the applicant sent a noise survey for the Council to approve, and could not be used until the acoustic enclosure was in place.
37. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2025. He said one of the reasons he objected to the noisy plant equipment was that it leans on a collapsing boundary wall and fence. Despite this, the Council’s environmental health team did not visit. The Council told Mr X it was considering his objections, but he then discovered the Council had already granted planning permission by letter two weeks earlier. Mr X said the Council had not properly considered the danger and asked the Council to run the process again.
38. The Council sent its stage one complaint response in June 2025. It said the case officer visited the site in November 2024. After internal consultation, the Council did not receive any objections from its environmental health team, design team, or arboricultural team. The case officer therefore advanced to draft their report. However, they visited Mr X’s property after concerns raised by his local councillor on 30 January 2025.
39. Mr X’s primary concern was noise, and the case officer followed up on this with environmental health. Environmental health recommended adding a condition requiring a noise survey to ensure noise levels remain within acceptable limits. The Council added this condition to its decision, but it cannot force environmental health to visit the site.
40. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two. He said the Council had not carried out noise surveys, and the applicant’s do not match his own readings. Mr X said his main complaint is that the case officer wrote to him saying they were considering his concerns, but it turns out the Council had already sent out letters permitting the build. He wanted the Council to make the decision again. He also wanted the Council’s views on the danger posed to his children due to the plant equipment being sited at a collapsed retaining wall.
41. The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 28 July 2025. It repeated what it told Mr X in its stage one response about how the case officer considered Mr X’s objections and consulted with environmental health about them. The Council said Mr X’s last correspondence with the case officer was on 20 March 2025, where they recognised his comments and said they were considered as part of their assessment. The officer’s decision letter was then issued on 25 March. The Council did not consider there was any service failure.
42. The Council said the applicant’s recorded noise levels were representative of the area, but Mr X can report concerns to the Council’s noise team who can visit to witness the noise.
43. The Council recognised Mr X’s concerns about the structure of the boundary wall and the danger to his children. However, it said this is a civil matter and not a reason to refuse planning permission. It said the planning department could only consider whether the principle of the installation is acceptable, subject to design, amenity and environmental impact and sustainability.
44. Mr X told the Council the applicant was breaching planning conditions in July 2025.
45. The Council emailed the applicant advising it received a report the plant equipment was operating. It said this was a breach of planning conditions and it opened an enforcement case to investigate. The Council told the applicant to stop using the plant equipment until they installed an acoustic enclosure and provided noise readings. The Council asked the applicant to confirm within seven days that they were aware of their obligations and will comply.
46. The Council wrote to the applicant in August 2025 about planning condition breaches, including failure to install an acoustic enclosure or obtain an acoustic report. The Council said it received complaints the plant equipment was being used and is noisy. It warned it had the power to take enforcement action, and failure to meet the requirements could result in a fine. The Council said the plant equipment use must stop and it should remain turned off until it had discharged the planning conditions. It said the applicant must apply to have the conditions discharged within one month, and they must install the required acoustic enclosure.
47. The Council emailed Mr X in September 2025 about his formal complaint. It said it appeared there was a technical fault in its system where residents who gave an email address and made representations were notified of planning decisions at the recommendation stage, before the Council finalised its decisions or formally issued them. It said the issue was only recently discovered and it was taking steps to resolve it. It apologised it did not discover this as part of its complaint investigation and offered Mr X £100 for his time and trouble.
48. Mr X complained to the Council’s noise nuisance team twice in November 2025. The Council visited the site on 28 November but did not consider the noise was a statutory nuisance.
49. Mr X complained to the Council’s noise nuisance team again in May 2026. The Council decided not to visit the site again after speaking to Mr X, as the noise source had not changed.

My investigation

50. Mr X told me the planning service did not properly consider his objections to the planning application, as he says it sent out communications granting planning permission beforehand.
51. Mr X considers the boundary wall is dangerous and half of it has collapsed. He said trees on the neighbour’s side were pushing the wall over. The neighbour then installed plant equipment without permission, making the situation worse.
52. Mr X told me the neighbour has now served a party wall notice to build a retaining wall behind the collapsing boundary wall, but this has not happened yet.
53. The Council told me the acoustic enclosure is subject to an enforcement investigation. The applicant has submitted plans to discharge the relevant condition, and the Council’s planning service are considering them. The enforcement team has asked for the application to be determined quickly. It can then consider any appropriate action.

Analysis

54. Mr X’s neighbour installed the plant equipment at the property boundary without planning permission. The Council’s enforcement team investigated and asked the neighbour to apply for planning permission so the Council could formally consider the issues. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, and we would not criticise the Council for inviting a planning application to consider regularising a planning breach.
55. The Council has now accepted fault over its online planning system, which alerted some people of the recommended decision before the Council had finalised its decision. Mr X considers this shows the Council did not give due consideration to his, and neighbour’s, objections, and was always minded to approve the application. I have considered what the case officer’s report says to show how the Council considered the relevant material planning issues and any comments or objections. I also considered the case history and the officer’s interactions with Mr X.
56. I found the case officer considered comments from consultees and objections from residents. They also engaged with Mr X specifically about his concerns. They visited Mr X’s property and sought further input from environmental health officers. This took place before the case officer finalised their report and before the Council made its decision. It also happened before the Council mistakenly sent some early decision notifications.
57. It is unfortunate that some decision notifications were sent prematurely, as this gave Mr X the impression the Council predetermined the decision. However, the Council explained this was an error by its online planning systems and I found no fault in the Council’s decision-making.
58. When considering a planning application, the Council must assess the principle of the development and any potential harm in planning terms. It would not consider third party rights, such as boundary walls. I did not find evidence of fault in the Council saying the safety concerns Mr X raised are a private matter sitting outside the scope of planning.
59. The Council investigated Mr X’s reports about breaches of the planning conditions. It wrote to the neighbour telling them to stop using the plant equipment and requiring them to apply to discharge the planning conditions. Again, we would not criticise the Council for that approach. The Council also signposted Mr X to its noise nuisance team to investigate the noise. An officer visited Mr X’s property to witness the noise, but did not consider it amounted to a statutory nuisance.
60. The process of discharging the planning conditions is ongoing, and the Council’s planning enforcement team has committed to considering further action once the planning department reaches a decision.
61. The Council apologised and offered Mr X £100 for his time and trouble complaining, after it failed to initially detect the issue with its online planning system sending early notification of recommended decisions. I did not find fault with the Council’s decision-making, and I consider this to be an appropriate remedy for the injustice which resulted from the Council’s identified fault. The Council should repeat this offer to Mr X if he did not accept it at the time.

Back to top

Agreed Action

62. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will repeat its offer of £100 for Mr X’s time and trouble complaining.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

64. I found no fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council accepted its online planning system alerted some people to its recommended decision prematurely and it offered Mr X a suitable remedy for the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman