Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and responded to breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council actions to warrant it, and the key injustice the complainant claims does not result from the Council’s actions as a planning authority but those of a third party.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has failed properly to enforce against breaches of planning control in a development near his home it granted planning permission for in 2021, but which the developer began to carry out in 2024 without complying with relevant conditions or the approved plans for development. Mr B says the developer has blocked his legal right of way, caused damage to his property and involved him in significant time and effort in pursuing the matter.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant, including the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council granted planning permission in 2021 after advertising the application and considering the comments it received. In 2024 development began and the Council established a breach of control as it had not approved a construction management plan as needed. The developer provided one and told the Council it had told relevant neighbours including Mr B. The Council approved the plan. In its complaint response the Council correctly said it was not required to consult neighbours. We cannot add to what the Council has said.
6. Mr B then reported part of the development was larger than approved, so the Council inspected, found that to be the case and invited an application for a material amendment to the planning permission. It advertised the application and in its complaint response reminded Mr B it was open to him to comment.
7. Local planning authorities do not have to take enforcement action against development which either does not have planning permission or exceeds a permission it has granted. They must consider whether it is expedient to enforce and will often consider an application for the development ‘as built’ to decide whether it is acceptable in planning terms before taking enforcement action. This is both in line with government guidance and what happened here, so it does not amount to fault by the Council.
8. The Council has provided clear enough explanations for its actions to show there is not enough evidence of fault in its actions to warrant us investigating.
9. Mr B says the developer has blocked his legal right of way and caused damage ‘near’ his property. Neither of those is a planning matter for the Council to consider. The first is a legal dispute over Mr B’s property rights, and the second is either a property damage claim or Party Wall etc Act 1996 matter or does not directly affect Mr B’s property. Both would properly be for the courts to decide if not resolved between Mr B and the developer privately.
10. If we are not investigating the matters in a complaint we do not separately investigate the way a council handles complaints and correspondence about them because it is not a good use of public money, nor does it cause significant separate injustice to warrant it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council actions to warrant it, and the key injustice Mr B claims does not result from the Council’s actions as a planning authority but those of a third party.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman