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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. Mr X says the development has a significant impact on his property.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
5. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and initially closed its enforcement case as it said the development complied with the approved plans. However, following a complaint from Mr X the case was re-opened, and it was established there had been a breach. The Council invited the developer to apply for retrospective planning permission for the development being built.
6. It is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application to regularise a development, and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
7. I am also 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 Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties. The acceptability of the development was also discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
8. Mr X says the planning committee members were discouraged from visiting the site. However, members could have chosen to refuse planning permission or deferred the application to a later date if they were not satisfied there was sufficient information to determine the application.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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. Mr X says there were delays with the Council’s enforcement investigation and it allowed the developer to continue with the development while the planning application was waiting to be determined. However, even if I did consider there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as the Council ultimately decided the development was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman