The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision to grant retrospective planning permission. Mr X says there were delays before the Council looked into his concerns and its decision to grant planning permission was inconsistent with the original planning decision for his neighbour’s extension. Mr X also says the Council failed to properly consider the impact the development would have on his family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission or not complied with planning conditions. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result.
In this case, the Council invited Mr X’s neighbour to make a retrospective planning application. I understand Mr X says the Council should have taken enforcement action. But councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control and it is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application to regularise a development.
I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mr X’s property, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. The officer also referred to the previous application and planning conditions for the site. The case officer decided the development would not harm the privacy or the amenity of Mr X’s property.
Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was inconsistent with the previous planning condition for the site. But the planning condition did not prevent Mr X’s neighbour submitting a planning application and the decision to grant permission superseded the previously imposed condition.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mr X has complained there were delays before the Council decided not to take enforcement action against his neighbour. However, even if I were to say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider that Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary as the development was acceptable.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman