Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a planning decision which affects his property. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of an unauthorised development at the adjoining property. Mr B says the Council allowed the development to continue before inviting a retrospective planning application which it then approved. Mr B says the Council did not give proper consideration to the impact of the development on his home and has treated him unfairly compared with the leniency shown to his neighbour.

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 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 B and have viewed planning records on the Council’s website. I have also viewed this location on Google maps and Streetview.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council was entitled to ask Mr B’s neighbour to put in a retrospective planning application for this unauthorised development.
7. This allows a local planning authority to consider in detail whether an unauthorised development is acceptable in planning terms. It is one of a range of options open to a local planning authority when investigating a breach of planning control. This approach taken by the Council is not evidence of fault. Any building work undertaken during this period was done so at the property owner’s own risk.
8. The Council’s consideration of this planning application is set out in a detailed case report which clearly assesses the impact of the development on the amenity of Mr B’s home. The Council has explained its decision that the impact on Mr B’s property is acceptable. I have not seen any information to suggest this decision was affected by fault. This means we cannot question the Council’s judgement that the development is acceptable in planning terms.
9. So, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman