Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the publicising of a planning application and the decision not to take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council:
• failed to tell her about her neighbour’s planning application and the site notice put up where it was difficult for people to see; and
• refused to visit her home or take enforcement action against an unauthorised brick wall put up by her neighbour
2. Mrs X wants the planning permission withdrawn and the brick wall demolished.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X, including the Council’s responses to her complaint and information on the planning pages of its website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and/ or site notice and/or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
7. Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission in 2020, during the COVID 19 pandemic. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic the Council decided not to send individual letters to neighbours of planning application sites. Instead, applicants are sent site notices to erect close to the application sites.
8. In this case the Council has a photograph of the site notice attached to a lamp post at the entrance to the cul de sac where Mrs X lives.
9. Mrs X says the notice was obscured by parked cars and it should have been placed closer to her home. She says she did not see the notice, and therefore did not object to the application.
10. In its response to Mrs X, the Council says the lamp post where the site notice was displayed is at the entrance of the road where anyone entering or leaving the close would see it. When the Council visited, the lamp post was visible. It is satisfied the notice met the statutory requirement as it was in a location visible to all residents of the street travelling in and out. It was close to the application site and on the same side of the road.
11. I will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint as it was not obliged to send Mrs X a letter about her neighbour’s planning application. It is unfortunate that Mrs X did not see it, but erecting a notice close to the application site satisfies the statutory requirement to publicise planning applications. And I have not seen any evidence that the notice was deliberately placed where it could not be seen.
12. Mrs X also complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against a brick wall built by her neighbour which is not on the approved plans.
13. Planning enforcement officers considered the information provided by Mrs X. They confirmed blocking up an opening and forming a doorway is a minor departure from the overall planning application. It has no impact on the public visual amenity. The Council decided it is not expedient to take any action to remove the bricked-up opening.
14. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary. In this case the Council has considered the information provided by Mrs X. It is satisfied it does not need a site inspection and will not be taking any action. Having considered the matter, this is a decision it is entitled to take.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised the planning application or decided not to take enforcement action; and
• We cannot require the Council to withdraw the planning permission or direct the neighbour to remove the brick wall.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman