The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X have complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. Mr and Mrs X say they have lost privacy and the development encroaches on their property. Mr and Mrs X say their neighbour should be required to comply with the plans originally approved and they should be compensated.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs 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. 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.
In this case, the Council agreed Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour had not complied with the approved plans for the development. I understand Mr and Mrs X say the Council should have taken action to remedy the breach. But councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control and it is not unusual for councils to invite the developer to make a retrospective application to regularise a development.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development built, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr and Mrs X’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the changes to the development were acceptable and would not significantly impact Mr and Mrs X’s property through increased visual intrusion or loss of light.
I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree. 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 and Mrs X say the party wall has been breached and the development encroaches on their property. They are also concerned the extension may damage their home. However, it is not for the Council to get involved in land ownership issues or concerns about property damage. This will instead be a private civil matter between Mr and Mrs X and their neighbour.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman