Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to grant retrospective planning permission. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. He says the Council allowed his neighbour to continue building the unauthorised development after it had accepted there was a planning breach and its decision to grant retrospective permission for the building was based on inaccurate information.
2. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint and says it did not consider his objections before granting planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. 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

5. 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.
6. 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

7. Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about his neighbour building an outbuilding in his garden without permission. The Council was unable to visit the site at the time but assessed the information Mr X provided and said it believed the development was allowed under permitted development rights. The Council said it would visit the site when it was able and confirm this.
8. Mr X continued to contact the Council about the matter and provided additional information. Because of changes to the building the Council agreed there had been a breach of planning control. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application to regularise the development built.
9. Mr X objected to the planning application. He said the foundations were unsafe and not accurately shown on the plans. He also said the building was overbearing and had a significant impact on his home. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to grant retrospective planning permission. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.
11. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with the planning breach. He says it should not have allowed his neighbour to continue building the development and gave him conflicting information about whether it would visit the site.
12. After Mr X first contacted the Council it considered the information available before deciding the works were likely permitted development. It did tell Mr X that it would visit the site to confirm this, but it later decided this was not necessary as it was able to decide there had been a planning breach based on the information from Mr X. I understand Mr X says the Council should not have allowed the works to continue once it confirmed there had been a breach. He also says the Council told him it would take action in relation to the unauthorised development. But the Council was entitled to invite Mr X’s neighbour to make a retrospective planning application and it is not unusual for councils to try and resolve planning breaches informally. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council in this regard.
13. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with the planning application. He says the case officer lied to him and his concerns were not considered before the decision to grant permission was made. However, I am satisfied the case officer considered Mr X’s objections, including his concerns about the building’s foundations, before deciding the development was acceptable. The case officer also considered the impact on Mr X’s home but decided the outbuilding did not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement 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.
14. Mr X has raised concerns the building has not been built in line with the necessary building standards and says the development is encroaching on his land. But issues regarding land ownership will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour. The Council’s building control officer also inspected the building and decided it was exempt under building regulations and they did not consider it dangerous.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman