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

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and her neighbour’s retrospective planning application.

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 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))
3. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and agreed the development had not been built in line with the approved plans. Ms X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to regularise the situation and the Council granted retrospective permission for the development.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development built, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer decided the development would not overtly impact the amenity of neighbouring properties over and above the development previously approved for the site.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees with the decision to grant retrospective planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Ms X has raised concerns about the development encroaching on her land and the location of the boundary between her property and the development site. However, it is not for the Council to get involved in landownership disputes. This will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.
10. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman