Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to consider the impact on his property when it granted planning permission for extensions to a neighbouring property in 2013. He also says the development does not confirm to the Council’s planning guidance documents.
2. Mr X also complains the neighbour has erected a large outbuilding in their garden which they are using for commercial purposes.
3. He wants the Council to:
• stop the development and to review the plans; and
• supply and erect a new fence to screen his property

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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 effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
8. In 2013, the Council granted planning permission to extend a neighbouring property. A condition on the application stated the work must start within three years from the date of the planning permission.
9. In 2021, Mr X contacted the Council to complain work had started after the planning permission had expired. He also said the Council had failed to consider the impact on the privacy to occupants of his property when it granted planning consent in 2013.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It says building control records indicate work started within three years and therefore the planning permission is extant. The Planning Officer’s report from 2013 also shows the impact on neighbouring properties was considered before the decision to grant planning permission was made.
11. The Council confirmed aerial photographs show the outbuilding has been on the site for more than four years and is therefore exempt from enforcement action.
12. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about a possible breach of planning control before deciding formal enforcement action is not possible.
13. In English law, there is a principle of ‘caveat emptor’ which translates as “let the buyer beware”. The rule places the responsibility on the buyer to carry out all necessary due diligence (for example, searches of the Council’s planning records, site visits, etc) prior to deciding to proceed with a purchase.
14. Mr X bought his home in 2017. Information about the planning permissions for the development (whether building work has started or not) was available and should have been picked up by Mr X or his solicitor during the conveyancing process before he bought his home in 2017..
15. And the Council’s Planning Officer report shows the extent to which the Council had considered the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties. It was for Mr X or his representative to contact the Council if he was unsure whether the planning permission was still “live”. It is too late to complain about the granting of planning permission more than eight years ago.
16. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is for the Council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s professional judgment in this regard unless it is tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the matter before deciding enforcement action cannot be taken, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman