Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible 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 the Council’s decision to grant his neighbour’s retrospective planning application. Mr X says the Council refused his neighbour’s first application and has not explained why it considered the second application acceptable. Mr X says the view from his property has been ruined and his home may lose value.

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. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
5. In this case, Mr X’s neighbour built a development without permission. Mr X’s neighbour made a retrospective planning application to regularise the development. However, permission was refused due to the impact on neighbouring amenity. Following this, Mr X’s neighbour made a second application for the development. The application also included a fence to provide screening and protect amenity. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission.
6. Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective permission. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not cause a significant loss of amenity in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. The case officer also decided the fence would not have any adverse effects on Mr X’s property.
7. Mr X says it is unclear why the Council decided the second application was acceptable when the first was not and believes his home may lose value. However, the case officer’s report set out the changes to the amended application and explained how these addressed the reasons for refusing the first application. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. Mr X says his neighbour has not built any bin storage as they should have. But the proposed bin storage was not a condition of the planning permission, and the Council has explained the absence of the storage does not amount to a breach of planning control.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its 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

9. 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