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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control and the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application. She says the Council has failed to consider her concerns and the development will impact parking in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. In this case, Ms X contacted the Council to report a possible breach of planning control as she said the development near her home had not been built in line with the approved plans. Ms X says she did not hear anything further from the Council until she was notified that an application had been made to amend the original plans.
7. It is not unusual for a council to invite a retrospective application to regularise a planning breach and councils do not have to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the retrospective application before approving the amended plans. The case officer’s report summarised resident’s objections and addressed the acceptability of the proposal, including the parking arrangements for the site.
9. Ms X says the dwellings that have been built are four-bedroom properties not the three-bedroom dwellings approved and there is not sufficient parking for the development. But the case officer considered if there was adequate parking for the development built. The Council has also visited the site since it approved the retrospective application and confirmed there is no planning breach.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s planning and enforcement decisions. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, and if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman