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

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application and a breach of planning control. She says the Council failed to properly consider the comments she made about the application and the development will have a significant impact on her property.
2. Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and says it allowed her neighbour to build an outbuilding without planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s comments and addressed the concerns she raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. Ms X says she contacted the Council to report a building erected by her neighbour without planning permission. She says the Council failed to take any action and allowed the building to continue.
11. 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.
12. The Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site but found no planning breaches. However, during a second visit an outbuilding was found that exceeded permitted development rights. The Council invited the site owner to make a retrospective planning application and has now granted permission for the development.
13. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective permission for the development. But council’s do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control and it is not unusual to request a retrospective application to regularise a development. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting permission for the outbuilding.
14. Ms X has also complained her neighbour has tried to take some of her land. But it is not for the Council to get involved with land ownership disputes. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.
15. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman