Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to consult the complainant following receipt of amended plans on his neighbour’s planning application. Nor will we investigate a complaint about its decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to re-consult him following receipt of amended plans for his neighbour garden building.
2. He also complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action on his neighbour's breach of planning control.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 Mr X including the Council’s responses to his compliant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council failed to re-consult him after it received amended plans for his neighbour’s proposed garden room.
7. The Council says it does not re-consult if the amended plans reduce the overall scale and massing of a proposal.
8. Government guidance on re-consultation on amended plans says:

“Where an application has been amended it is up to the local planning authority to decide whether further publicity and consultation is necessary in the interests of fairness.”

9. Therefore, there is no obligation on the Council to consult neighbours if it receives amended plans. The Council has explained when it does not carry out a fresh consultation. As this is action the Council is entitled to take we will not investigate this part of the complaint as we have seen no evidence of fault.
10. Mr X also complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against his neighbour for an acknowledged breach of planning control.
11. The Council confirms its Officers have visited the site. It says the overall roof height of the garden room is lower than allowed by the planning permission. But the skylight is about 49 centimetres higher.
12. The Council confirms a rooflight was approved as part of the planning permission, although this was for a lower height than the one built. As the principle of the rooflight is acceptable, it does not consider the increased height of the built rooflight justifies taking enforcement action.
13. 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.
14. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
15. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action. An officer visited the site in response to Mr X’s concerns but decided the breach of planning control does not justify taking enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s decisions not to re-consult on the amended plans and not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman