on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Planning > Enforcement Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 02 Mar 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application and breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decisions. Mr and Mrs X have also not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not follow correct consultation procedures during a planning application. They say the Council failed to enforce the conditions on the application causing damage to the trees and hedges along their property boundary. They have also complained about how the Council dealt with their concerns about the unauthorised use of a building at the site. Mr and Mrs X want the Council to apologise for how it handled the planning application and enforce the conditions of the application. They also want the Council to pay the costs of replanting the trees and foliage that was damaged.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to consult the town council before approving an application to discharge a planning condition. There is no requirement for councils to consult residents or the town council when it receives an application to discharge a planning condition. However, even if there was fault with how the Council publicised the application, I do not consider Mr and Mrs X suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council still properly considered the necessary information before approving the application. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had additional consultation been carried out.
Mr and Mrs X complained the approval of the planning application was predetermined.
The Council refused a previous application to discharge the planning condition because there was inadequate evidence available. A new application was submitted to the Council which was later approved following an extension of time to consider the evidence. This suggested the Council considered the information provided before making its decision and there was no evidence of predetermination in its decision.
I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedures. I will not investigate because I am unlikely to find fault.
Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to enforce planning breaches.
The Council investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. It carried out site visits and assessments but decided enforcement action was not necessary.
Planning enforcement action is discretionary. Councils may decide the nature of a breach is not enough to warrant enforcement action. We cannot say the Council should have taken a particular view about a breach if it has acted properly by considering it.
I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr and Mrs X’s concerns and shared with them the reasons it would not take formal enforcement action.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr and Mrs X have also not suffered significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman