Summary: X complained about a planning decision relating to land next to their home. We ended our investigation because it was unlikely we would find fault, recommend a remedy, or achieve any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. The person that complained to us will be referred to as X. X lives next to a site which has planning permission to demolish a building and rebuild a replacement.
2. X complained the Council is taking too long to determine a planning application for a change of approved plans which would make the new building higher and closer to the shared boundary.
3. X also complained about the Council’s failure to answer their questions about planning enforcement issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and discussed it with X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
6. I gave the Council and X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.

What happened

12. There was a large building on land next to X’s home. The Council received a planning application for a proposal to demolish the building and replace it with a number of other dwellings.
13. The planning application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of planning history considered relevant;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the principle of development, the design, visual amenity, impact on the character of area, the impact on residential amenity, ecology and bio-diversity issues, and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
14. The application was approved by planning committee, subject to planning conditions.
15. The building was demolished, and construction work began. X noticed the development appeared different to the approved plans and reported this to the Council.
16. The Council’s planning enforcement officers considered X’s allegation and wrote to the developer, warning that if building work continued, this was at the developer’s risk, as permission for any unlawful changes might not be granted. Eventually the developer submitted a planning application to vary the plans, but this application has not yet been decided.
17. X said the building’s roof is now being built and they are concerned that this will make further enforcement action difficult.
18. X wrote to planning enforcement officers with questions and says that some have not been answered.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
20. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
21. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
22. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
23. I should not investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• I have seen no evidence of fault in the decision-making processes so far. Before the Council made its planning application decision, it considered material planning issues, law and planning policy. This is the process we would expect.
• I cannot say any delay causes a significant injustice to X. The Council retains planning control over unlawful development and can use its powers as it sees fit. If the developer chooses to, they may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for ‘non-determination’ of the application, but X has no right of appeal.
• The Council is not obliged to treat X as if they are a party to the application and do not need to explain their actions in detail to third parties. Council enforcement officers are entitled to delay action to await the outcome of a planning application.
• We do not normally investigate complaints about planning matters while the planning process is ongoing.
• I accept that it might be onerous to ask a developer to demolish a building built without permission, but this does happen. We cannot speculate on what might happen next.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I ended my investigation because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for X or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman