Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in taking enforcement action against unauthorised development at a neighbouring property. There was unreasonable delay by the Council. However, the complaint was closed because Mr X did not suffer significant injustice in consequence of the fault.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains about delay by the Council in taking enforcement action against unauthorised development at a neighbouring property.
2. Mr X says his neighbours carried out illegal and unauthorised work on their property between November 2019 and April 2020. He reported their activities to the Council but the Council did not take any action for over two years.
3. Mr X says his neighbours constructed a plethora of ugly buildings and outbuildings which ruined his view, garden, interfered with their aspect, degraded the area, and created flooding concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 or may decide not to continue with 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I examined the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Planning enforcement guidance

7. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary. A breach of planning control is defined in section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) as:
• The carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• Failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
8. Where the breach involves carrying out development without permission, the authority may serve an Enforcement Notice if it is expedient to do so under section 172 of the Act. It is for the planning authority to decide whether it is expedient to take action.
9. The government’s current guidance on planning enforcement is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and, in more detail, in its online guidance, ‘Ensuring effective enforcement’.

‘’Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.”

10. Councils have a choice of different enforcement options so as to secure a satisfactory remedy for a breach of control. Not all cases will, therefore, be dealt with in the same way. The options range from taking no formal action to issuance of an Enforcement Notice.

Background

11. Mr X reported his neighbour’s activities to the Council’s planning enforcement team. He made formal complaints to the Council in March and April 2021. Mr X also approached the Ombudsman.
12. The Council responded to Mr X in April 2021. It said Mr X was in correspondence with members of its planning team and the last correspondence was in March 2021. It said it was in discussion with Mr X’s neighbour and there was no set timeframe for when the process would be completed. It registered his contact as a service request rather than a complaint.
13. Around the same time, the Ombudsman asked Mr X to refer his complaint back to the Council as it was premature for this service to deal with. Mr X then complained to the Council’s Chief Executive in May 2021. Mr X also made an information request to the Council and says the Council’s response showed officers had not been in contact with his neighbour contrary to what he was told in April 2021.
14. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in October 2021.The Council said Mr X’s concerns had not been deemed to be high priority and that was the reason for the delay in looking at his complaints. The Council said his neighbours had submitted a new planning application which partly sought to regularise unauthorised development that had taken place. The Council granted planning permission for the application in March 2022. The unauthorised works are now regularised and so there is no further planning enforcement action required.

Finding

15. There is no set statutory timeframe within which a planning enforcement investigation by a local planning authority must be completed. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman expects planning authorities to do so in a reasonable period of time. Here, it appears the Council only dealt with the matter in the latter half of 2021 contrary to what officers had told Mr X in April 2021. The Council said the matter had not been considered a high priority in its complaint response to Mr X. However, the assignment of priority should have been explained at the outset to Mr X so he would have been aware that officers were not dealing with the case in any substantive way. I find there was unreasonable delay in dealing with the matter. I also find the Council provided a poor service to Mr X.
16. I acknowledge Mr X’s understandable frustration with the Council’s handling of this matter. I urge the Council to use this case and my finding as a learning opportunity to improve the service it provides its residents.
17. But I do not find Mr X suffered a degree of injustice in consequence of the delay and poor service that warrants further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman. One of the enforcement options open to a local planning authority is to ask the person who carries out unauthorised development to submit a retrospective planning application so the planning authority can consider the planning status of the unauthorised development. That is what happened in this case. Had the Council acted earlier, the outcome would still have been the same.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I found fault by the Council. However, the complaint was closed because the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the matter by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman