Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council failed to take enforcement action over a breach of planning control at a nearby development. He is unhappy the Council approved a retrospective planning application and about the impact the development has on his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered information available on the Council’s website. I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. A planning authority must consider what, if anything, to do once it is aware of a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary.
5. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is a planning authority.

What happened

6. The Council approved a planning application for a three bedroom bungalow on land near Mr Q’s home.
7. The owner, Ms Z, did not build the bungalow in accordance with the approved plans. Mr Q complained to the Council about this. He said the car port was bigger and now extended to the boundary line. In addition, he said the roof line was predominantly flat instead of pitched. He also complained about other changes to the access, landscaping and front wall.
8. An enforcement officer spoke to the Planning Officer who dealt with the planning application. Their view was that the changes were minor and, if Ms Z applied for planning permission, the Planning Officer would support the changes. The Planning Officer thought the development was of a good appearance and quality.
9. The Enforcement Officer did not think the breaches would justify further action. Nevertheless, he wrote to Ms Z inviting her to make a planning application to regularise the changes. She later applied for retrospective planning permission. Mr Q commented on the size of the car port. He also commented that landscaping at the front had been changed to hard landscaping which could be used for additional parking. The Council considered Mr Q’s objections. However, its view was that the bungalow is of a good quality and design. It approved the planning application, despite Mr Q’s objections to it.
10. The Enforcement Officer wrote to Mr Q saying the planning breaches had been addressed and the Council could not take further action.
11. Mr Q remains unhappy with the Council. He believes the Council has ignored him and, as a result, he has lost privacy and the outlook from his property has changed. He thinks the Council should enforce the original consent.

Analysis

12. We will not investigate this complaint.
13. Planning authorities must investigate when they receive complaints about breaches of planning control, but they do not have to take enforcement action for every breach. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered whether to take enforcement action over the breaches before inviting Ms Z to make a retrospective planning application to regularise matters. That was a decision it was entitled to make, and the evidence I have seen shows the Council considered Mr Q’s objections to the application. So it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council for the action it took, particularly as it thought the breaches were minor and did not warrant further action.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman