The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a breach of planning control at a property next to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should not have granted retrospective planning permission for a structure at a neighbouring property which had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.
Mr X says that by approving the retrospective application, the Council is encouraging and condoning the practice of building without planning permission.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the outcome, even if the complainant disagrees with it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, and our Assessment Code.
I also considered the planning application documents on the Council’s website.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions to invite and approve a retrospective planning application for the works. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against those decisions. Rather, we consider whether there is evidence of procedural fault in the way they were made. If there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we cannot criticise the Council’s judgements.
Planning enforcement is discretionary, and it is for the planning authority to decide what action, if any, it is expedient to take. Government guidance encourages planning authorities to act proportionately in response to breaches of planning control, and to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers in the first instance.
In this case, the Council investigated Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control, and the neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application in response. During the determination of the application, I understand the case officer viewed the structure from both the application site and neighbouring property. The officer’s report then considers the visual impact of the development, and its impact on the residential amenity of adjoining neighbours. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on the impact of the development, even if Mr X holds a different view.
Overall, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the enforcement case or its assessment of the subsequent planning application to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled the case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman