Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to protect Mrs X from planning harm caused by her neighbour’s development. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to prevent planning harm and protect her from her neighbour’s development by failing to act on breaches of planning control.
2. She says the only acceptable remedy is the demolition of all parts of the building that do not comply with the approved plans and conditions.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. If development takes place without the necessary planning permission or fails to comply with a planning permission, there will be a breach of planning control. Councils should investigate reported breaches.
7. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, so even if councils find a breach, they may decide to take informal action or not act at all. When deciding whether to take enforcement action, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant planning permission if they received an application for the unauthorised development.
8. Mrs X reported her neighbour had not adhered to approved plans when developing their property.
9. The Council opened a planning enforcement investigation. It served a Breach of Condition Notice (BCN) requiring the owner to demolish all development that did not comply with the approved plans. It confirms officers discussed matters with the applicant. It decided to require remedial work only on the parts of the development that caused the most harm. The remaining breaches could be regularised by a planning application.
10. The neighbour put in a section 73 application to vary the conditions of the previously approved application. The conditions they applied to alter concerned the approved plans and the facing materials.
11. The Council publicised the new application and Mrs X objected.
12. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme. This included a summary of the objections received. It also detailed the relevant national and local planning policy.
13. The report also detailed the development as built and considered the impact on Mrs X’s property and amenity. It explains why the Council considered the proposals acceptable. Planning permission to vary the approved plans and facing materials was granted.
14. In response to my enquiries the Council confirms the work to regularise the most harmful breaches has been completed. And permission was granted to vary the conditions there are no breaches of planning control on the site.
15. I understand Mrs X is not happy with the Council’s decision to permit the neighbour to vary the conditions on the original planning permission. However, It is not the Ombudsman's role to decide whether planning permission should be granted or whether there has been a breach of planning control. That is the local planning authority’s role. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the correct process in determining the planning application or carrying out an enforcement investigation. If a council has followed the process correctly, we cannot find it at fault just because a person disagrees with its decision.
16. The planning officer’s report sets out what has been built, planning policy and the key issues for deciding the application. It shows it considered the objections received and the impact on Mrs X’s home.
17. Mrs X has stated the only acceptable remedy to her complaint is to require her neighbour to the demolition of all parts of the building that do not comply with the approved plans and conditions. However, following the works carried out to the property and the granted of the section 73 application, the Council confirms there are no parts of the building in breach of planning control.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of breaches of planning control or the application to vary the conditions to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman