Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with enforcement relating to the planning permission for a development near his home. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with enforcement relating to a breach of a condition to a planning permission near his home. Mr X says he has suffered damage to his property, loss and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint as well as the Council’s response to my enquiries. I have reviewed planning documents available to the public and correspondence between the Council and Mr X’s legal representatives.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
7. The Council’s planning enforcement management plan sets out its approach to dealing with breaches of planning permission. It sets out that there will first be an assessment of whether there is evidence of a breach of planning control, and that “when it is proposed to take no further action, because no breach has occurred... the person who complained of the breach will be notified and an explanation provided of the Council’s reason(s) for the purposes of transparency.”

What happened

The planning application

8. In 2015, the Council considered a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. Permission was granted and a condition attached relating to the access arrangements for the new development.
9. The new development did not take place immediately and Mr X has said he believed this to be because the condition regarding the proposed access arrangements were incapable of being fulfilled.
10. The development was begun in August 2018. Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council in October and November 2018, requesting it take action to enforce the condition regarding access. The Council replied that the condition, “requires the approved vehicles access, parking and manoeuvring and turning areas to be available for use before the development is brought into use i.e. using the dwelling as opposed to building the dwelling. At this time, the Planning Authority does not intend to enforce this Condition.”
11. In December 2019, Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council again asking it to take enforcement action in respect of the condition and included photographs showing the location and access concerned. They stated, “ the development should not have been allowed to go ahead until a satisfactory alternative access had been arranged.” The Council replied that the condition did not require formal discharge and there was no information showing the development did not have the approved access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas in breach of the condition. The Council said Mr X could have challenged the planning decision if he took the view that planning permission had been granted without proper regard to the proposed access arrangements.

Mr X’s complaint

12. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2020, saying it should take enforcement action regarding the attached condition. The Council said that there was no breach of the planning permission.
13. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. The Council again stated that there was no breach of the planning permission.

Analysis

14. The Ombudsman only looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.

Planning permissions and enforcement

15. The fundamental nature of Mr X’s complaint is that he does not agree that the access to the new development is sufficient. He believes that the condition is not able to be fulfilled because the approved access arrangements do not comply with guidance. The decision in respect of this was taken when the planning permission was granted in 2015 and which I am not investigating now. The Council can only consider enforcement action in respect of breaches of planning permission that has been granted, not planning permission that someone believes should have been granted.
16. I have seen the planning permission and the highways responses considered when the planning permission was granted.
17. The Council’s complaint responses show it has considered the relevant planning history and permissions relating to the development. It is clear the Council has considered all correspondence provided by Mr X, including photographs of the access, when it has considered the issue. The Council has explained in its complaints responses why it is not taking any enforcement action, because there is no breach of the condition Mr X complains about.
18. I agree with the Council. The planning decision was made in 2015. The decision about whether the access arrangements were adequate was made then. The letter from Mr X’s solicitor in 2019 demonstrated an understanding of this when it contended the application should not have been approved. The issue before the Council in respect of Mr X’s complaint, is whether the development is in accordance with the approved plans or not.
19. The Council has considered the planning permission, several letters setting out Mr X’s case, together with photographs of the access that he complains about. There is no evidence the Council have failed to consider whether the access arrangements are consistent with the approved planning permission.
20. On the balance of probabilities, the Council has considered whether enforcement action is appropriate in the circumstances. The Council replied to Mr X several times saying it intended to take no action because there was no breach of planning permission. The Council complied with its enforcement management plan. This was not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council was not at fault. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman