The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. Ms X says her neighbour has not complied with a planning condition and her privacy has been affected.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms 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.
The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
In this case, the Council granted planning permission for a development next to Ms X’s home. The development was not completed in line with the approved plans and a retrospective application was made to regularise the situation. The Council granted retrospective planning permission subject to a condition which required the developer to provide details of proposed screening to the Council for approval. Ms X’s neighbour provided information to the Council and the condition was discharged. However, the screening that has now been erected by Ms X’s neighbour does not reflect the screening approved by the Council.
The Council accepts the planning condition has not been complied with. However, it has decided not to take enforcement action against Ms X’s neighbour. It says it considers the breach trivial as the screen erected is still effective and achieves the aims of the planning condition as it protects neighbouring amenity.
Ms X says the screening in place does not protect her amenity and is not a permanent fixture. She says the Council previously refused the screening proposed by her neighbour as it was temporary. However, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the screening was sufficient and that enforcement action was not necessary. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman