Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council decided on a discharge of conditions application for a development near to his home. We do not find fault with the process the Council followed to make its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council decided on a discharge of conditions application for a development near to where he lives. Specifically, Mr X says:
• The Council agreed plans that are materially different to the original permission that was granted, meaning the development will be significantly more imposing on the local area and less secure for the prevention of pollution;
• The planning officers provided the applicants with undue assistance with the application; and
• The planning officers failed to act with due diligence and approved non-compliant plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. We cannot usually investigate complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before a complainant contacted the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
7. Mr X first complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025, meaning anything that took place prior to July 2024 has been raised late.
8. The original planning application was approved in 2021, but I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion to look back as far as that.
9. The discharge of conditions application was received in May 2024. I have exercised discretion to look back to this point as it is reasonable to say Mr X would not have been aware of the alleged issues until permission was granted.
10. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint as set out above from May 2024, up until the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint in June 2025. Any mention below to events that took place prior to May 2024 or after June 2025 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr X 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

Relevant law and policy

13. An application for any consent, agreement, or approval, required by a planning condition, or limitation attached to consent, must be made in writing to the council and give enough information to allow it to identify the consent. In addition, it needs to include details, and be accompanied by such plans and drawings, as are necessary to deal with the application. (The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 section 27 (1) (a) and (b)).
14. A council must notify the applicant of its decision within eight weeks. (The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 section 2).
15. The Courts decided the appropriate test for discharging a condition is whether the application is ‘satisfactory’. A council has to look at whether a proposal is a satisfactory solution to the impact to which the condition referred. It does not have to be ideal. It also needs to look at whether the requirements of the condition cannot be read as imposing unreasonable requirements on the interested party. (Cathie, R (On the Application Of) v Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2148 (Admin))

What happened

16. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
17. A landowner applied for planning permission for a development near to Mr X’s home. The Council approved the application and granted permission with conditions attached to it. These said no work could take place until detailed site plans and details of landscaping were sent to the Council and approved.
18. The landowner applied to have the condition discharged and provided supporting information that included proposed site plans, sections and proposed landscape maintenance.
19. Mr X provided comments on the proposals and raised concerns that these deviated from those included in the original planning permission.
20. The Council engaged with the landowner over the application and the discrepancies between the approved plans and those submitted in the discharge of conditions application. The landowner then provided amended plans.
21. The Council remained concerned about the application so further engaged with the landowner who responded by providing amended plans to address the Council’s concerns.
22. The Council considered the information it had received from the landowner as well as representations it received from local residents. The Council considered the information the landowner had submitted was appropriate to satisfy the conditions and approved the application for these to be discharged.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman is not a planning authority and cannot determine whether a discharge of conditions application should have been approved. Instead, we investigate how the Council considered applications and whether it has acted in accordance with the law, guidance and its own planning objectives.
24. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether its decisions were right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
25. The case officer’s report shows they considered the purpose of the original conditions against the supporting plans from the landowner as well as the representations received from local residents before making a decision. I do not find fault with the process the case officer followed when making their recommendation to approve the application. It follows that I cannot question the decision they reached.
26. Mr X has said the Council provided undue assistance with the application, but I have seen no evidence to support this. The Council engaged with the landowner to advise them where it had issues with their application and accepted amended plans to address these. This is not unusual and I have seen nothing to suggest the Council gave undue assistance, so I do not find it at fault here.
27. Mr X has also said the Council failed to act with due diligence and agreed plans that are materially different to the original permission that was granted. When the Council initially received the discharge of conditions application, it identified discrepancies between the submitted plans and those originally approved. The Council made the landowner aware of that and was provided with amended plans that it was satisfied aligned with the approved plans. I do not find the fault with the process the Council followed here.
28. The Council has confirmed there is a slight change to the profile of the proposed development, but it decided this did not affect the overall application and the change was minor enough to fall within the scope of the condition. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this, but that is a decision the Council was entitled to make, and I do not find it at fault.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find no fault with the way the Council decided on the discharge of conditions application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman