Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainants have not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained on behalf of himself and other residents about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development near their home.

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 Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
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. 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

6. The Council received a planning application to extend Mr X’s neighbour’s home. Mr X and the residents of the other neighbouring properties objected to the proposal and raised concerns about the impact the development would have on their homes. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions.
7. The Council later received an application to vary the planning conditions and make changes to the approved development. The changes mainly related to the materials proposed for the building. The Council considered the application and granted permission.
8. Mr X and the other neighbouring residents have complained about how the Council dealt with the applications. Mr X says they were not consulted about changes to the plans and were not updated regarding the outcome of the application once it was determined. He says there was a lack of transparency from the Council and its planning system is not user friendly and precludes residents without access to a computer.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a breach of planning control. This is because I am unlikely to find fault and the complainants have not suffered significant injustice.
10. Mr X says the case officer’s report contained incorrect information regarding the objections received. He also argues the officer’s assessment of the impact of the proposal was flawed and the development will have a significant impact on neighbouring amenity. But I am satisfied the case officer properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The report addressed potential overlooking and loss of privacy, but the case officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr X says he was not informed about amendments to the original plans and therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the changes. He also complains he was not told about the outcome of the planning application and there was a long delay before the Council published the case officer’s report. The Council accepts there was a delay before the case officer’s report was available on its website and says it is currently reviewing how it notifies residents about planning decisions. However, it says it did write to the residents that had originally commented on the proposal to tell them about the amended plans. I cannot know why Mr X did not receive the Council’s letter. But even if it could be shown this was not sent, or that the Council was at fault for not telling Mr X about its planning decision, I cannot say this has caused any significant injustice. The Council did still properly consider the application before granting permission and it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X had the opportunity to comment.
12. Mr X has also complained the development is not being built in line with the approved plans. The Council accepts there has been a breach of planning control but says the changes to the approved plans are minor and will not cause any additional harm. Therefore, it decided it would not be expedient to take formal action. I understand Mr X disagrees, but it is for the Council to decide what, if any, enforcement action is necessary. As the Council considered if formal action was required in relation to the planning breach, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainants have not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman