Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Authority’s decision not to take formal enforcement action. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice because of any delays.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Authority dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near her home. Ms X says the Authority’s enforcement investigations were flawed and based on incorrect information. She has also complained about the service she has received and says there have been long delays.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot question whether an authority’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 Ms X and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission or not complied with planning conditions. It is for the authority to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says authorities should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. Ms X has raised concerns about several planning breaches at a site near her home. However, I am satisfied the Authority properly considered if formal enforcement action was necessary. It looked into Ms X’s concerns and explained why it did not consider there had been a breach in relation to some of the issues raised. It has also explained why it did not consider it necessary to take action in relation to the planning breaches it identified.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the Authority was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not needed and authorities do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Authority properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. The Authority did initially decide to take enforcement action in relation to an unauthorised access at the site. But there were long delays, and the enforcement notice was not issued. However, I cannot say Ms X has been caused significant injustice because of the delays as the breach has since been resolved.
11. Ms X has also complained about the Authority’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Authority’s decision not to take enforcement action. Ms X has not been caused significant injustice because of the delays in the Authority’s enforcement investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman