Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in dealing with a planning breach. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s response to a neighbour’s planning breach which she says has impacted on her amenity, reduced the value of her property and caused road safety issues.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2021 the Council received a complaint about a planning breach in connection with development at a property in Ms X’s road.
7. The Council investigated the breach and decided to take formal enforcement action. It served an enforcement notice on the property owner four months later and subsequently agreed to allow the owner an extension to 6 months within which to comply with it.
8. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about these matters, the Council explained it had first sought to resolve the issue without the need for formal enforcement action and when this course of action was not successful, it issued the notice. As the neighbour made contact with the Council following the notice, asking for more time with which the comply, the Council agreed to an extension. It has told Ms X that if the neighbour has not complied with the notice within the 6-month period, it will consider further legal action and prosecution.
9. While I understand Ms X is unhappy with the time taken to get to this stage, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome. If the neighbour does not comply with the notice, it will be for the Council, and not the Ombudsman, to decide whether to take further action.
10. In responding to my draft decision Ms X says the notice has now expired and as the neighbour has not complied with it, the Council is late in taking further action. She says we should investigate and ask the Council to enforce the notice. However, it is for the Council to decide what priority to give the case and what further action is required. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to us issuing a direction to the Council to enforce the notice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman