Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and planning applications. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control and retrospective planning applications. Ms X says the Council has made errors and ignored evidence and says the development has a significant impact on her home and encroaches on her property. Ms X is also concerned the development will impact access to her property and cause damage.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered 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. 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. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach.
6. In this case, Ms X contacted the Council as she was concerned her neighbour’s extension was not being carried out in line with the approved plans. The Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach. Ms X’s neighbour was invited to submit a retrospective application to regularise the development.
7. The Council approved the retrospective application. Ms X has complained about the Council’s decision and has raised concerns about how the application was dealt with and says the plans were not accurate. The Council has accepted there were issues with the plans and Ms X’s concerns about the matter were not addressed by the case officer. However, I do not consider Ms X has suffered significant injustice as a result as the Council has since approved a non-material amendment application to reflect the changes to the plans.
8. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before approving the planning application and the application for the non-material amendment. The case officer’s reports explained why there would not be an unacceptable impact on Ms X’s home. The report for the non-material amendment also explained why the Council did not consider the proposed changes to be material. I understand Ms X may disagree, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
9. I understand Ms X says the planning breaches at the site remain. The Council has accepted there are still planning breaches at the site, and its enforcement investigation remains open. As the Council’s enforcement case has not yet concluded, it is not yet possible to say if Ms X has suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s investigation. Ms X can return to the Ombudsman and make a new separate complaint if she remains unhappy once the enforcement investigation has ended.
10. Ms X says her neighbour’s development encroaches on her property and believes it will cause damage to her home. However, land ownership issues and property damage claims are not planning matters and will instead be a civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman