Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and the related enforcement case. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or that Mrs B has suffered a significant personal injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs B wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained the Council did not consult her and her neighbours on a 2020 planning application which approved the layout of a new housing development close to her home. The new drawings show that 2007/8 plans to plant around 15m of woodland between existing and new houses had been removed. Mrs B says this is not compliant with the original regulatory plan. Mrs B also complains that the developers have moved the site boundary. This means one of the new houses is closer to her boundary than it was in the approved drawings.
2. Mrs B complains this has caused a loss of amenity and privacy and has spoilt the character of existing properties. Mrs B wants the new houses removing and the woodland planting in its place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B says the drawings in the original 2020 planning application are not compliant with the 2007/8 regulatory plan as the proposed 15m strip of woodland has been built upon. Mrs B says if she had received formal notice of the application she would have commented or objected.
7. The Council says that Mrs B’s property is on the neighbour notification list. It is unlikely we would be able to prove whether the neighbour notification letters were sent because of the amount of time that has now passed. It is not therefore appropriate to investigate this point further.
8. The Council said in its response to Mrs B’s complaint that the drawings approved under the 2020 planning application superseded the regulatory plan. The strip of 15m woodland on the regulatory plan was seen as unnecessary when it approved the application. There is no fault in a council making different decisions on a matter several years apart.
9. The Senior Development Officer’s report considered the impact on character, appearance, and the neighbour’s residential amenity. The report says the closest proposed house is at least 120m away from the rear elevation of the existing houses. There is also mature planting at the bottom of Mrs B and her neighbours’ gardens which provides screening from the new housing development. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the original planning application.
10. Also, the separation distances and mature planting at the bottom of the garden means that any impact by the removal of the 15m of woodland is minimal. So, even if there was fault by the Council, the injustice to Mrs B from the development would not be significant enough to warrant us investigating.

Reported breach of planning control

11. A council can take enforcement action if it finds planning rules have been breached. However, Councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be proportionate to do so. There is no fault in how the Council made its decision so we cannot question the outcome.
12. The Council says there has been a technical breach of planning regulations as one new house is closer to Mrs B’s boundary than approved. But the new house is at an almost 90-degree angle to Mrs B’s property. It is also situated at the end of her garden where the mature planting is reducing any risk of overlooking. The Council has decided it is not expedient to take formal enforcement action. The Council has instead asked the developer to apply for a non-material amendment to regularise the position. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take and there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question this decision.

13. Mrs B would like the house removing and replaced with the 15m strip of woodland. Even if we investigated this is not an outcome we could achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman