Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following reports of breaches of planning control. From the information we have seen there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs B, says the Council:
• allowed a developer to continue with construction following a breach of planning control
• failed to monitor the protection of her beech tree
• allowed the developer to build a garage that is higher than shown in the plans; and
• failed to properly consider the impact of the developer on her property

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs B reported breaches of planning control at a development site close to her home.
6. The Council issued a Temporary Stop Notice, ordering work on the site to stop for 28 days while it established what was happening. Mrs B says the developer continued work. The Council confirms it spoke to the builder and work then stopped for the rest of the 28-day period.
7. The Council invited the developer to put in a retrospective application to regularise the development. It publicised the application and Mrs B objected.
8. The Planning Officer’s reports for both the original plans and the later, retrospective application show the Council considered the objections, including those made by Mrs B before deciding to approve the proposals.
9. The Council is satisfied, that while there may be a minor increase of less than 10 centimetres in the height of the garage wall, this would not have affected its decision to approve the applications. It also notes the areas of Mrs B’s property identified by her as being impacted by the garage wall are a patio and conservatory. Both are 40 metres from the garage.
10. Mrs B says the developer continued with the build despite receiving the Temporary Stop Notice, and she informed the Council of this several times. However, a retrospective planning application was submitted and considered by the Council. That the developer continued with the build is not the fault of the Council.
11. Mrs B also says the Planning Officer report contains errors including (but not limited to)
• her conservatory and patio are 32 metres from the site, not 40 metres
• the site slopes east/west, not north/south
• the garage wall is much higher than stated
• they can see people in the new property – so Mrs B’s privacy must be affected
• her outlook is spoiled with a slate roof instead of hedging
• failure to confirm if her beech tree has been protected
12. Government guidance does not say that councils should act against all unauthorised development, but a council should act where serious harm to local public amenity is being caused. The decisive issue for the LPA should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the unauthorised use of land or buildings merit protection in the public interest.
13. In this case, the Council visited the site and issued a TSN. It invited and received a retrospective planning application to which Mrs B objected. The reports refer to the objections and show it considered Mrs B’s amenity. I do not consider that referral to the distance between Mrs B’s conservatory and patio to be 40 metres, when it is 32 metres is sufficient fault to warrant investigation. The Council has confirmed Officers have visited the site, therefore they are aware of what has been built and the relationship to Mrs B’s property.
14. I acknowledge that Mrs B disagrees with the Council’s view. However, we do not comment on judgements councils make unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman