Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission and enforcement, because the matter is out of time, and, as enforcement has been considered by a body out of jurisdiction there is no evidence of injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a nearby building and enforcement of the refused planning permission.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Planning Inspectorate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning permission was granted in January 2018 for a large building close to Mr X’s house. Mr X says that the building when completed was not built in line with the approved plans and was too close to his house.
7. The developer submitted a new planning application for a similar scheme, which the Planning Inspector subsequently noted had been subject of objections about incorrect measurements. The Council granted this planning application in June 2020.
8. Complaints were made in 2021 that the building had been built approximately three feet too close to Mr X’s house.
9. A retrospective planning application was refused by the Council in July 2022 which was then appealed successfully to the Planning Inspector.
10. The decision Mr X disagrees with by the Council too place in 2018 (and subsequently in 2020). I consider that a complaint about these decisions could reasonably have been made within 12 months of those decisions. The complaint about the planning applications is therefore out of jurisdiction.
11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
13. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
14. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 59)
15. The Council’s response to the allegation that the building was incorrectly placed was to seek and obtain a retrospective planning application to see if the building would have received planning permission in its final position. The Planning Inspector decided that this was acceptable in planning terms. Therefore, the Council could not have succeeded in taking planning enforcement action as any appeal against a notice would not have been successful.
16. Mr X says that objectors paid for an assessment in support of their objections but the Ombudsman does not consider that this is an injustice following fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is out of time and there is no evidence of injustice caused by maladministration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman