Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a 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 breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. Ms X says the development is too close to her home and is causing damage to her property.

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. Ms X contacted the Council as she was concerned her neighbour had built a garage without planning permission. The Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach of planning control. The site owner submitted a retrospective application to regularise the breach. Councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach and it is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application to address breaches.
6. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not impact the amenity of the adjoining residents.
7. Ms X has raised concerns about access and damage to her property. But these will be private civil matters between Ms X and her neighbour.
8. I understand Ms 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 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