Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and an application to discharge planning conditions. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and an application to discharge planning conditions. Mr X says the Council has allowed a development which is significantly different to the plans originally approved and that includes an unauthorised raised patio. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his concerns about the planning breach and it agreed the ground levels for the site without consulting the affected residents. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach of planning control as the raised patio was not included in the approved plans. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. It said the harm caused by the breach was low as the degree of overlooking was not significantly greater than what would occur if the height of the patio was lowered to comply with permitted development rights.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and disputes the enforcement officer’s measurements. But the Council has explained how it measured the development and it was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it was not expedient to take enforcement action. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X has also complained he was not consulted about the floor levels for the site. The planning permission for the development was subject to conditions. One of these conditions required the developer to submit details of the finished floor levels to the Council for approval. The developer submitted the required information, and the Council discharged the planning condition. I understand Mr X says he should have been consulted about the plans and the proposed ground levels before these were approved. But councils are not required to consult residents about an application to discharge planning conditions. The Council was also entitled to use its judgement to decide the plans were satisfactory.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman