South Northamptonshire District Council (20 007 579)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 05 Feb 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to charge the complainant a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant could also have appealed to the Valuation Office Agency if he disagreed with the Council’s calculations for the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and his application for retrospective planning permission. He is also unhappy the Council charged him the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr Y, on behalf of Mr X, to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. A CIL is a planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008. It allows local authorities to deliver infrastructure to support and develop the area. Most development which creates net added floorspace of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home, is liable for the levy.
  2. Some development may be exempt or eligible for relief from the CIL, but there are strict requirements that apply in relation to the exemptions. The person liable for CIL can appeal to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) if they disagree with the collecting authority’s calculation of the amount charged.
  3. 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. However, if the development is considered unacceptable, it may be necessary to take other action to secure compliance such as serving a breach of condition or enforcement notice.

What happened

  1. The Council granted outline planning permission for a two storey, two bedroom home. Shortly after this, the Council received a reserved matters application for the development. It granted permission subject to conditions. In 2018, Mr X purchased the development site and started work to build the new dwelling.
  2. In 2019, The Council contacted Mr X as it had received a complaint the development was not being built in line with the approved plans. The Council visited the site and agreed there had been a breach of planning control. It served an enforcement notice requiring Mr X to either demolish the building or amend it, so it was in line with the approved plans.
  3. Mr X submitted a retrospective application for the development that had been built with a few amendments. The Council considered the application, but Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspectorate as the Council had failed to determine the application within the required time frame. The appeal was dismissed, and Mr X subsequently submitted a second application for the site. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions.
  4. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with the matter. He says he was pressured to make the retrospective application and says the Council has unfairly said he is liable for the CIL.

Assessment

  1. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to charge Mr X the CIL. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.
  2. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with the breach of planning control and says the Council forced him to make a retrospective planning application. But if Mr X did not agree with the enforcement notice he could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate or made changes to the development so it was in line with the approved plans.
  3. Mr X argues the CIL should not have applied as the development he built was in line with the outline permission granted and works commenced before this permission expired. But the Council explained why it considered the development Mr X has built materially different from that approved. Therefore, while the outline planning permission was granted before the Council introduced the CIL, this permission was never implemented. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
  4. Mr X has also disputed the Council’s calculation of the CIL. However, if someone disagrees with the Council’s calculation they can appeal to the VOA. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate a matter where someone had the right to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and Mr X could have appealed to the VOA if he disagreed with the Council’s CIL calculations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings