Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of a planning application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Mr Y has also not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve a neighbour’s retrospective planning application. He believes this was approved unlawfully and says that proper processes were not followed.
2. Mr Y says the development has caused him significant concern and distress.

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.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y’s neighbour had a planning application approved to demolish their existing dwelling and build a replacement dwelling. They erected an outbuilding in their garden whilst building works were ongoing, which they were allowed to do. (Schedule 2 Part 4 Class A of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended)). Once building works ended, Mr Y’s neighbour should have removed the outbuilding or applied for planning permission if they wished to retain it.
8. Mr Y raised concerns about his neighbour’s outbuilding to the Council in late 2023. The Council opened an enforcement investigation and concluded there was no breach at the time. This is because it determined the outbuilding was allowed to exist without planning permission, because building works were ongoing.
9. The Council failed to close the enforcement file against Mr Y’s neighbour in late 2023. It accepts it should have done this when it confirmed there was no breach. This resulted in Mr Y not being properly updated at the time. The Council has since made an effective apology to Mr Y for this. I am satisfied that Mr Y did not suffer significant injustice because of this administrative error and therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint. The Council investigated Mr Y’s concerns and considered whether it needed to take enforcement action against his neighbour. I am satisfied that the outcome would not have been any different even if it had closed the file and informed Mr Y in 2023.
10. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. The Council completed a site visit to Mr Y’s neighbour in December 2024. It confirmed building work was still ongoing, and therefore the outbuilding was still allowed to remain.
12. Mr Y complained to the Council in August 2025. He raised further concerns about the lawfulness of his neighbour’s outbuilding, because building works were finished. The Council investigated this and confirmed there was now a breach. It confirmed it would invite Mr Y’s neighbour to complete a retrospective planning application to retain the outbuilding. It is not unusual for councils to do this.
13. Mr Y complained further to the Council in September 2025, querying why no retrospective planning application had yet been submitted by his neighbour. The Council said it was in communication with his neighbour to obtain compliance for the outbuilding and confirmed it was considering whether to take enforcement action.
14. There is evidence to support the Council’s ongoing communication and engagement with Mr Y’s neighbour to achieve compliance and regularise the planning breach. A certificate of lawfulness for the outbuilding was rejected, and a retrospective planning application was submitted. The application has now been approved.
15. I understand that Mr Y is unhappy that the planning application was approved, especially as an enforcement file was open and a certificate of lawfulness had been previously rejected. However, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in deciding how to manage the enforcement case. The law says Councils must work with people to regularise breaches, ensuring any enforcement action is proportionate and defensible given the right of appeal attached. Therefore, the route the Council took in this case is not unusual.
16. On reviewing the officer’s notes, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the planning application. It referred to relevant evidence available and acknowledged the applicant’s position. Mr Y says he has been denied a fair opportunity to participate in the planning process, but I have seen evidence that his comments and objections were properly considered by the Council. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and handling of the planning application, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
17. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Mr Y has also not suffered significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman