Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a retrospective planning application and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application and a breach of planning control. Ms X says the Council took too long to determine the application and failed to monitor the site to ensure the developer complied with the planning conditions. Ms X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with the breach and says it failed to take action.
2. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint.

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, 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms 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. 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.
6. In this case, the Council was notified that the use of a site had changed without permission. A retrospective planning application was submitted to regularise the breach. Planning permission was granted subject to planning conditions.
7. Ms X has complained about how long it took to decide the application. The Council has explained why there were delays. However, even if I did agree there was fault by the Council, I do not consider Ms X has suffered significant injustice as a result. Ms X does not live in a property next to the site and therefore would not be impacted by the activities at the development site. The Council also ultimately decided the use of the site was acceptable.
8. Ms X says the planning conditions that applied to the permission were breached. Ms X says the Council failed to ensure the conditions were met and did not take action once she reported the breach. However, it is not unusual for local planning authorities to rely on potential breaches being reported and we would not expect a council to continue monitoring development sites after planning permission is granted. Once the Council became aware of the potential breach, it looked into Ms X’s concerns and contacted the site owner to arrange for an application to be made to discharge the relevant planning condition. The condition has now been discharged.
9. I understand Ms X says the Council should have issued a breach of condition notice. But councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault. I also do not consider Ms X suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation as she does not live in a property directly impacted by the development.
10. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman