• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. 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. However, if the development is considered unacceptable, it may be necessary to take other action to secure compliance such as serving a breach of condition or enforcement notice.

What happened

5. Mrs X contacted the Council in May 2019 as she noticed her neighbour had built decking and a pergola in their garden without permission. Mrs X raised concerns about the impact of the decking and pergola and said it caused overlooking and a loss of privacy.
6. The Council looked into Mrs X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach of planning control. It invited Mrs X’s neighbour to make a retrospective application to regularise the development. Mrs X’s neighbour submitted an application and the Council granted planning permission.
7. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. She is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with the matter and says it gave her neighbour too much time to submit the application and the planning officer was unprofessional when they spoke over the phone.

Assessment

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control as it is unlikely he will find fault and Mrs X has not been caused any significant injustice.
9. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission and says the development causes significant overlooking to her home. However, it is unlikely I could say the Council is at fault in this regard. I can see from the case officer’s report that Mrs X’s concerns, including the impact on her home, were considered before the officer decided the development was acceptable.
10. Mrs X has complained that the Council did not follow the correct process before granting planning permission. She says it did not give the public the required time to comment on the application. The Council normally gives 21 days for people to comment on a planning application. In this case I can see that the decision was made 21 days after the Council wrote to the affected neighbours. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council in this regard. However, even if the Council did not allow the necessary time for people to make comments, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice as she did comment on the application and her concerns were considered before planning permission was granted.
11. Mrs X says the Council gave her neighbour too much time to submit the planning application. However, when a local authority receives a report about a possible breach of planning control there is no requirement for it to take immediate action and government guidance encourages councils to try and resolve the matter informally where possible. Furthermore, even if it could be shown that there were delays before the retrospective application was submitted, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice as the application has now been determined and planning permission granted.
12. Mrs X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint and says the planning officer was unprofessional when they spoke over the phone. The Council disputes this and says it believes there may have been a misunderstanding about the advice given and the officer attempted to answer Mrs X’s questions. In circumstances such as these I cannot know exactly what was said when Mrs X spoke to the Council officer. However, the Ombudsman would not normally use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling if we have decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault and Mrs X has not been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page