Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of a retrospective planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation of unauthorised development near his home. He says the Council failed to prevent the work continuing and ignored the objections of residents when it approved a retrospective application to regularise the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council investigated a report of unauthorised development near Mr X’s home in early 2023. It required the owner of a property to apply for planning permission for extension works to their home which required approval. The owner submitted a retrospective application but carried out further building work during six weeks when it was being considered.
6. Mr X believes the Council should have served a stop notice on the owner. The Council says this was not necessary for a domestic development and that any additional work was carried out at the owner’s risk as it would have been necessary to remove it if the application was unsuccessful.
7. Mr X and other residents objected to the submitted plans. The Council considered the case and decided a site meeting for committee members was required. An officer told Mr X that neighbours would be informed about the meeting but this did not happen. Site meetings are normally held to view the development site only and members of the public and objectors are not invited to allow the members to have an uninterrupted viewing.
8. Following the meeting the committee considered and approved the retrospective application. Mr X believes the objectors’ comments and an independent report on the development were ignored. I have read the case officer’s report and it is clear that references were made to the objections which were summarised adequately. There is no requirement to reproduce the objections in full or to communicate with objectors during the planning consideration.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. In this case the Council followed the proper enforcement and planning procedure when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of a retrospective planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman