Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to determine a retrospective planning application. And the decision not to act against a failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• approved his neighbour’s unlawful planning application for a garage extension close to the boundary with Mr X’s property; and
• failed to take action against a breach of an enforcement notice.
2. He wants the Council to insert a condition in the planning permission forbidding any part of the building from being used as a home of any kind and to be limited to light storage and office use only.

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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2019, the Council refused a retrospective planning application to enlarge and alter an existing garage including roof extensions and charges to windows. The neighbour appealed to the Planning Inspector who dismissed the appeal due to the impact of the development on another neighbouring property.
7. The following year the Council received another application for a similar development. This was refused for the same reasons. The neighbour again appealed and again the appeal was dismissed.
8. The Council served an Enforcement Notice (EN) on Mr X’s neighbour. This required them to remove an unauthorised extension to their garage by September 2022.
9. The neighbours failed to meet the deadline. The Council confirms it advised the neighbour that formal enforcement action was likely. It says the neighbour advised they would comply with the notice by April 2023. The Council told Mr X that formal enforcement action would not achieve compliance sooner than the date suggested by the neighbour. The decision not to take action is one which the Council is entitled to take.
10. In April 2023 the neighbour submitted another retrospective planning application. The law says the Council had the power to refuse to determine the further retrospective application. However, following receipt of legal advice, the Council decided to accept the new application. It says this is because it considered the new application amended the development in a way which was materially different from the previous applications.
11. The decision to determine the latest planning application is one which the Council is entitled to make. It did not impact on the extant EN.
12. The Council publicised the application and Mr X objected. The planning officer visited the site and prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of Mr X’s objection.
13. The report notes the Planning Inspector dismissed the previous appeals because of the harmful impact on another neighbouring property. No harm was considered to be caused to Mr X’s property.
14. The Planning Officer considered the impact of the new scheme on Mr X’s home. It includes reference to the Planning Inspectors decision on the previous refused applications which says:

“The extended building does not therefore have a harmful overbearing effect on the residential occupants of this property”

15. The Planning Officer concluded the new proposal resolves the harmful impact of the previous schemes and recommended approval. A senior officer agreed, and the application was approved under the Council scheme of delegation. The planning permission includes a condition which states:

“The garage hereby approved shall only be used for purposes incidental to the main dwelling.”

16. From the information we have seen there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the final retrospective planning application to justify an investigation.
17. Mr X wants a new condition inserted into the planning permission. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered planning enforcement matters and determined the retrospective planning application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman