Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council’s investigation of a breach of planning control. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to act on his repeated reports of breaches of planning control. He says this allowed unauthorised development to continue.
2. Mr X says this has caused damage to a private road and damaged the character of the green belt. He also says the neighbour’s new garage includes external stairs and a platform which overlooks his garden.
3. Mr X wants the Council to take formal enforcement action against the breach of planning control.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

5. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has provided a detailed chronology of his contact with the Council. His neighbours received planning permission to build stables and a new garage.
9. Mr X noted the stables and garage under construction were much larger than those shown on the permitted plans. He first reported a breach of planning control by his neighbours in May.
10. He continued to report his neighbours actions and urged the Council to visit the site.
11. The Council first visited the site in June. However, the Officer could not gain access. The Officer advised Mr X they had asked the neighbours to contact the Council to discuss the development at their home. The Officer told Mr X no site visit would take place until the neighbours had responded to their request for contact.
12. Mr X continued to report the ongoing development of his neighbour’s property which was contrary to the planning permission.
13. The Council says Officers visited the site in August. However, the neighbours were not present, and a full inspection was not possible.
14. Mr X continued to chase the Council to take enforcement action.
15. At the end of August, Officers visited the neighbour’s property and completed a full site inspection. This included measuring the height of the neighbour’s new garage.
16. The Council told Mr X that it had asked the neighbour to put in a retrospective planning application to regularise what they have built.
17. The Council continued to write to the neighbours asking them to submit a planning application. However, the Council did not receive this until December. Mr X continued to chase the Council during this time, asking it to take action against the unauthorised development.
18. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers.
19. The Council’s planning enforcement policy says it prioritises site visits in response to reports of breaches of planning control. Site with the lowest priority breach should be visited within 15 days of receiving a report.
20. In this case the first site visit did not take place within 15 working days. Therefore, the Council has not followed its policy. However, the Council has confirmed this is not a case where a formal Stop Notice would have been justified.
21. I understand the frustration his neighbour’s continued unauthorised development of their property has caused Mr X. However, the Council has visited the property and it is entitled to seek a retrospective planning application to regularise what the neighbours have built.
22. Mr X wants the Council to take enforcement action against the unauthorised development. However, I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council not taking enforcement action while a retrospective application is pending.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because I do not consider further investigation will lead to a different outcome. The Council must determine the pending retrospective planning application.
24. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking which is for the Council to take formal enforcement action. If the application is refused it will be for the Council to decide what enforcement action, if any is necessary.
25. If Mr X believes there are administrative faults in the way the Council deals with the planning application, or if the application is refused and there is delay in the Council’s decision as to what action it will take, he can make a new complaint to the Council. If he remains dissatisfied with the outcome of any further complaint he can ask the Ombudsman to consider his fresh concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman