Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and 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 a breach of planning control and his neighbour’s retrospective planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to properly assess the impact of the development and the new extension causes a significant loss of light to his home. Mr X says the extension should be rebuilt in line with the plans originally approved by the Council.

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. (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. 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.
5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning and enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. Mr X says the Council should require his neighbour to rectify the building so the extension is in line with the plans originally approved. However, councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control and it is not unusual to invite a retrospective planning application to regularise a development.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the impact of the extension as built was not likely to be significantly greater than the development previously approved. The officer acknowledged there may be some limited loss of light, but this would not be significant enough to warrant the refusal of the application or have a detrimental impact on Mr X’s amenity.
8. Mr X says the Council failed to visit his home to properly assess the impact of the development. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before determining an application and the Council has explained how it was able to properly assess the application without visiting Mr X’s home.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

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