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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about an extension built by his neighbour without planning permission. Mr X says there was a long delay before the Council looked into his concerns and the development encroaches on his land. Mr X says the Council granted retrospective permission for the extension even though it is larger than permitted development rights allow.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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. However, councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach and it is not unusual for councils to invite a retrospective application to regularise an unauthorised development.
5. The Council carried out a site visit in response to Mr X’s concerns about his neighbour’s extension. It agreed the development was unauthorised and invited Mr X’s neighbour to make a retrospective planning application.
6. Mr X says the extension should be reduced in size as it is larger than allowed under permitted development rules. But a development is not automatically unacceptable because it exceeds what is allowed under permitted development. This just means a full planning application will be needed.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer decided the extension would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. The acceptability of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant permission.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the extension was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the retrospective application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has complained about how long it took the Council to look into his concerns. He also says the development encroaches on his land. However, I cannot say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided the extension was acceptable in planning terms. It is also not for the Council to get involved in land ownership issues as this will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman