Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning applications, reports of breaches of planning control and a complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed:
• to follow the correct process when considering his neighbours’ planning applications
• to enforce conditions on his neighbours’ planning permissions
• to correctly consider his complaint.
2. He wants the Council to:
• review its decisions
• reinvestigate the reports of breaches of planning control; and
• enforce the conditions attached to the neighbours’ planning permissions.

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. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Planning enforcement is a discretionary power held by local planning authorities. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decisions on whether to use their powers. National government advises authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where there is significant harm caused by an identified planning breach.
8. Mr X complains the Council has not enforced against breaches of planning permission for development at his neighbour’s property.
9. From the information I have seen, the Council received a planning application from Mr X's neighbour. The Council publicised the application. It did not receive any objections to the application. The planning officer’s reports shows the Council considered the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring properties before granting conditional planning permissions. The relevant conditions required the development to be built according to the approved plans and finished to match the existing materials.
10. Mr X reported breaches of the planning conditions. The Council inspected the property and noted the building was higher than that stated on the approved plans and the neighbour intended to finish the build in render rather than brick.
11. The neighbour submitted a retrospective application to regularise what has been built. The Council wrote to Mr X advising it had received the new application. The letter is titled, “for information only”.
12. Mr X objected to the application saying the extension is higher than stated on the new application and the neighbour had built the extension in block work instead of brick. Their correspondence also referred to other non-material planning matters.
13. The planning officer report includes objections on:
• the height of the extension
• non-matching materials including the block construction; and
• overpowering impact on neighbouring rear gardens.
14. The report details why the officer believed the proposal overcame the objections. The officer recommended the application be approved. A senior officer reviewed the report and agreed with the planning officer. The application was approved.
15. Mr X says the Council failed to consider his comments on the retrospective application. However, the planning officer report shows the Council’s considered the material planning considerations which include Mr X’s objections.
16. From the information I have seen there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications. Nor is there evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of breaches of planning control.
17. Mr X also complains about the way the Council considered his complaint. The information I have seen shows the Council followed its published complaint procedure. However, it did apologise if Mr X felt the stage one response was not detailed enough. The stage two response addressed his concerns in full.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way:
• the Council considered his neighbour’s planning applications
• the Council dealt with his reports of breaches of planning control; and
• considered his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman