The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of breaches of planning control and subsequent retrospective planning applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains the Council has been turning a blind eye to major and deliberate breaches of planning control and granting retrospective approvals for his neighbour since 2009. The latest series of building works without seeking approval began in 2019.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B complains the Council has allowed his neighbour to breach planning control and make retrospective planning applications instead of taking enforcement action.
Government guidance on planning enforcement says: “Effective enforcement is important to maintain 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. They should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that is appropriate to their area. This should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development, and take action where appropriate.”
The Council’s published Enforcement Plan says: “It is important to note that just because there may be a breach of planning control this in itself, is not sufficient reason to take enforcement action.”
and “Expediency is a test of whether the unauthorised activities are causing harm to the environment or amenity of the area. Therefore, enforcement action is discretionary, and each case must be assessed on its own merits. Guidance from Central Government is that enforcement action should be a last resort and that councils are expected to give those responsible for a breach of planning control the opportunity to put matters right or to seek to regularise the breach before resorting to serving a formal notice.”
Mr B complains his neighbour has breached planning control many times by building contrary to approved plans, or without planning permission.
The Council has accepted retrospective planning applications to regularise these breaches. Members of the public, including Mr B, have objected to the retrospective planning applications. The planning officer’s reports show the Council has considered the objections but decided to approve the application(s). Details of why the Council considers the applications are acceptable are detailed in the reports.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Consideration of retrospective planning applications is a legitimate and acceptable way of dealing with breaches of planning control.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman