Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application for a site near Mr X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for illuminated advertising signs on a building near his home. He says the Council:
• Failed to tell him about the application.
• Failed to consider the relevant national and local planning policies.
• Allowed excessive illumination which has led to increased use of the site. This in turn led to harm from the added traffic, parking, deliveries and waste.
• Dismissed its powers to cancel the planning permission as for exceptional cases only.
2. Mr X says the Council has caused persistent light intrusion into his home and added disturbance.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Applications for permission for advertising signs are regulated by the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the regulations).
7. Under the regulations Local Planning Authorities do not have to tell neighbours about such applications. However, they can choose to do so.
8. I understand the Council’s policy is to tell neighbours whose properties physically adjoin application sites and any other properties’ the planning officer considers appropriate.
9. Mr X’s home does not adjoin the application site. However, in its response to Mr X’s complaint a senior officer says they consider the planning officer should have told Mr X about the application because of the location of his home. It has apologised for failing to do so.
10. However, even if the Council considers it should have told Mr X about the application, I do not consider he has suffered a significant injustice as a result. This is because I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the illuminated signage before granting planning permission.
11. The planning officer’s report refers to the impact on neighbouring properties, including the building where Mr X lives and the area. The officer decided the Council could mitigate the harm to the area from excessive lighting by restricting the hours during which the signs can be illuminated. The proposal would then comply with the relevant planning policies.
12. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the proposal in his amenity. And failed to explain why the restricted hours of illumination will mitigate the harm. However, from the information I have seen the Council considered:
• The site is a restaurant in a mixed-use development with commercial, retail and residential use.
• The proposed locations of the signs with regards to the building where Mr X lives.
• The external appearance of the site is of a commercial and retail site which does not harm the overall appearance of the building.
• The impact on the area.
13. The report explains that by restricting the allowed hours of illumination, the residents of Mr X’s building would be protected from excessive light.
14. I understand Mr X’s view is the Council has failed to explain why it considers restricting hours of illumination mitigates the impact on him. However, the Council must consider the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area and on public safety. I am satisfied the planning officer’s report is enough evidence to show the Council met its statutory duty.
15. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the proposal, I consider it likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X had the opportunity to make detailed objections.
16. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, planning permission is automatically deemed to be granted for the display of certain standard advertisements, provided they align with specific regulations.
17. The regulations allow an LPA to demand the removal of an advertisement that is normally allowed under "deemed consent".
18. Mr X has asked the Council to issue a Discontinuance Notice because of “substantial injury to amenity”. The Council has correctly explained these powers are used in exceptional circumstances. It confirmed it has reviewed:
• the application
• the supporting documents; and
• the conditional planning permission

and is satisfied the case does not meet the level for issuing a Discontinuance Notice. Having reviewed the relevant information, this is decision the Council is entitled to take.

19. If Mr X considers the illuminated signs are causing a statutory nuisance, he can ask the Council’s environmental health team to investigate. It is also open to Mr X to ask the magistrates court to decide if the illuminated signs are causing a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application for illuminated signs near his home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman