Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbour failing to meet planning conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council had failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour who failed to comply with the relevant planning conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s new fence which did not comply with the relevant planning conditions. Mr X told us his neighbour had created an eyesore.
7. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control. In this case, after considering all the relevant information and tests, the Council decided not to exercise its planning enforcement powers. It decided it was not in the public interest to take formal action and enforcement action would not be proportionate or reasonable. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process so we cannot question the judgement it reached.
9. The Council recognised its delay in responding to Mr X. It issued an apology. There is no suggestion the outcome would have been different for Mr X had the Council responded quicker.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman