Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice by any delays.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. He says the Council took too long to look into his concerns and he is unhappy with its decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X says the unauthorised development impacts his property.

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 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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered if formal enforcement action was necessary. It considered Mr X’s concerns and visited the site. However, it decided some of the works were permitted development. It agreed the cladding that had been erected would require permission, but it decided it would not be expedient to take formal action. It said the unauthorised cladding would not impact the street scene and would only have a minimal impact on Mr X’s outlook. It also said the materials used were good quality and the development was not a poor standard of design. Therefore, it decided formal action was not justified.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not needed and councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained about how long it took the Council to look into his concerns. But I cannot say he has been caused any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice by any delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman