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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. Mr X says there have been significant delays and the Council has failed to prioritise the planning breach. Mr X says the matter has had a significant impact on his health and he has incurred costs because of the Council’s actions.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is the leaseholder of a property which has been subject to an enforcement investigation and retrospective planning application. The Council decided there had been a breach of planning control and listed building consent as unauthorised works had been carried out to the property.
6. The developer of the property applied to the Council for retrospective permission to regularise the breach and carry out the necessary works to repair the building. Mr X is unhappy with how long it has taken the Council to deal with the situation and is concerned about the impact the matter is having on the condition of his home.
7. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. However, enforcement action is discretionary, and council’s do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result and it is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
8. Mr X says there was a delay before the applicant applied for retrospective planning permission. But it is not uncommon for there to be negotiations between the council and applicant before an application is submitted and this can take some time.
9. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with the planning application. He says there have been significant delays and the application has still not been determined. However, the Council has explained why it has taken longer to assess the application and why further information was needed. Additional information is often provided during the course of an application which may require further consultation. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to show undue delays by the Council.
10. Mr X says he was not informed about the site visit. But I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard. The case officer was not required to tell Mr X about the visit and did not need access to his property to assess the site.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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