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 complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council agreed the building did not comply with permitted development rights and Mr X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective application. It is not unusual for a retrospective application to be submitted to regularise a development, and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided there would not be an adverse impact on Mr X’s home in terms of increased noise, loss of outlook, privacy or light.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment 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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman