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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. He says the Council has failed to take any action and the breach impacts highways safety.

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. 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 Mr 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 or not complied with planning conditions. 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, the Council granted planning permission to build residential properties. The permission was subject to conditions, including a condition requiring visibility splays to be provided and retained at the access to the site in line with the approved plans.
7. Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about a fence erected which he said breached the planning condition and caused highway safety issues. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and a retrospective application for the fence has now been approved.
8. Mr X disagrees with the decision to grant retrospective planning permission. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting permission. The impact on highway safety was addressed in the case officer’s report and the officer decided the fence would not adversely impact the visibility splays of vehicles entering and exiting the road. The Local Highway Authority was also consulted, and no concerns were raised. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely we would find fault.
9. Mr X says the Council has ignored the planning condition. However, a planning condition does not prevent future applications for a site and the recent application has precedence over the previous condition.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman