Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning permission and how it handled the concerns he later raised. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council has apologised and offered to make a suitable payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application and its subsequent decision not to take enforcement action.
2. He also complained about the time taken to investigate the matter and respond to his complaint.
3. Mr X says the development has a significant impact on his property and causes overlooking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and legislation

Planning permission

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

10. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

Enforcement

11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
13. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.

What happened

14. In 2021, Mr X’s neighbour but one was granted planning permission for a development to the rear of their property.
15. In September 2022, Mr X contacted the Council, concerned that the development built did not match what had been agreed in email exchanges between the Council and the architect.
16. In October, the Council told Mr X that it would complete an investigation into any potential breach of planning conditions within 25 working days.
17. Over the following months, Mr X sent several follow-up emails. The Council provided updates in January 2023, visited his property in April, and advised it would discuss the case with a manager in May.
18. In August 2023, the Council told Mr X it had asked the neighbour to take informal action.
19. In October, Mr X asked the Council for an update.
20. In November, the Council told Mr X that having reviewed the case, it found the development had been built in line with the approved plans and therefore it was not going to take any further action against the neighbour.
21. In December, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about:
• the time taken to address his concerns;
• mismanagement and maladministration in approving the application; and
• a conflict of interest, as the same officer was involved in both the planning approval and enforcement review.
22. In April 2024, the Council provided its stage one complaint response. It acknowledged delays and apologised, explaining that additional staff had been recruited to improve the service. It accepted there had been an error in approving the plans but said the difference would not necessarily have led to a refusal of planning permission. It also confirmed there was no conflict of interest, as it is standard practice for the original case officer to deal with related enforcement matters. The Council maintained that the development had been built in line with the agreed plans.
23. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two in May.
24. In October, the Council issued its final response. It reiterated that, although there had been fault in approving the plans, the development was built in accordance with them so enforcement action could not be taken. The Council explained the impact on Mr X's property would not have warranted refusal and confirmed the enforcement investigation was appropriately handled by the original case officer. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, the Council offered Mr X £600.

My findings

Planning application

25. The Council acknowledged that there was fault in approving the plans and apologised to Mr X. However, it determined the impact of this fault on Mr X’s property would not have been a reason for the planning permission to be refused.
26. I have assessed the impact on Mr X by comparing the approved development with what would have been built had the fault not occurred. While there is some impact on Mr X, I do not consider it significant enough to amount to an injustice requiring a remedy, as Mr X is not a direct neighbour to the development.

Enforcement

27. The Council concluded that the development has been built in line with the approved plans and therefore no enforcement action would be taken. I find no fault in this decision.
28. However, it took the Council thirteen months to reach this conclusion, despite telling Mr X that an investigation would be completed within 25 working days. This delay is fault and caused Mr X distress and uncertainty.

Complaint handling

29. The Council significantly exceeded its published response times for both stages of Mr X’s complaint. Stage one took four months instead of 10 working days, and stage two took five months instead of 20 working days. These delays are fault and caused Mr X distress and uncertainty.

The Council’s remedy

30. The Council acknowledged the delays, apologised, and offered Mr X £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. I have considered whether this remedy is in line with the expectations set out in our Guidance on Remedies. In my view, the amount offered exceeds what I would normally recommend in the circumstances. I therefore do not recommend any further remedy.
31. I have not recommended any action for the Council to take to improve its services. This is because it has already taken steps to prevent recurrence, including staff reminders and the recruitment of additional officers.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman