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 its decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour. Mr X says the development does not comply with planning guidance and the Council has not acted in line with government guidelines. Mr X says the development will impact his 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. In this case, Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned his neighbour was not carrying out their development in line with plans previously approved. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. The Council agreed there had been a breach of planning control and Mr X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective application to regularise the development.
9. Mr X says the Council allowed his neighbour to submit two retrospective applications. He says the second application should not have been accepted and enforcement action taken. But the Council has explained the first application was not valid.
10. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective permission for the development. However, it is not unusual for a council to invite a retrospective application when there has been a planning breach. I am also satisfied the case officer properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission.
11. The Council has said that some of the alterations to Mr X’s neighbour’s property were not reflected on the plans approved. However, it decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not necessary and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I would find fault.
12. Mr X has raised concerns the development may damage his property. But this will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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