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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not act transparently and failed to take appropriate enforcement action. Mr X has also raised concerns about how the Council dealt with the retrospective planning application and says the development has a significant impact on his home.
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, 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 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. 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. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
In this case, the Council received a planning application for a development next to Mr X’s home. The Council assessed the application and granted planning permission subject to conditions.
Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned the development was not being carried out in line with the approved plans. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and enforcement officers visited the site. The Council agreed there had been a planning breach as an error was made when the original application was approved as the site plan was not in line with the other plans for the development. The developer was invited to submit a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
Mr X has raised many concerns about the Council’s enforcement investigation. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the breach and it is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application when there has been a breach of planning control. Mr X says he was given conflicting information about the plans for the original application and measurements taken by the enforcement officer were incorrect. Mr X has also complained the Council failed to issue a stop notice once the breach was established.
The Council has accepted there was an issue with the plans approved for the first application. However, the developer will now need to comply with the plans approved for the retrospective application. I am also satisfied the Council has explained why it did not consider it necessary to issue a stop notice. This was a decision it was entitled to make. Mr X says the Council should have visited his property to assess the impact of the development. But there is no requirement for officers to visit neighbouring homes when assessing a breach or a planning application and officers can often assess the impact from the development site.
Furthermore, even if I did agree there was fault with how the Council investigated the breach, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as ultimately the Council decided the amended development was acceptable.
I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the retrospective application before granting planning permission for the amended development. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised, including the impact on neighbouring properties and wildlife. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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 about how the Council communicated with him and says it failed to keep him updated. But I do not consider the injustice suffered as a result of these issues significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman