Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near his home. He says there have been delays throughout the Council’s enforcement investigation and it has not acted in line with its policy.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. 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. It is for the council 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 councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation. However, if the development is considered unacceptable, it may be necessary to take other action to secure compliance such as serving a breach of condition or enforcement notice.

What happened

5. In June 2018, Mr X contacted the Council to complain about his neighbour building a garden house and store without permission. The Council contacted the developer and invited a retrospective planning application to regularise the development built. The developer submitted a retrospective application, however the Council refused planning permission.
6. A few months later the developer submitted a second application for the development. This application was referred to the Council’s planning committee and permission was again refused. In November 2019, the Council served an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised development.
7. The developer appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the development. The Planning Inspector has allowed the appeal.
8. Mr X has complained about the Council’s enforcement investigation. He says the Council took too long to take any action after he first reported the unauthorised development. Mr X has also complained about further delays after the Council refused the first planning application and says it should have served the enforcement notice much sooner. Mr X says the Council has not acted in line with its policy and allowed the unauthorised development to remain for longer than necessary.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice.
10. I understand Mr X says the Council should have taken enforcement action much sooner. He argues that the development has been in place for longer than necessary because of the Council’s delays. However, even if there were unreasonable delays by the Council, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice. Mr X’s neighbour appealed the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission and the Planning Inspector allowed the appeal. Therefore, most of the development that was built can remain. I understand the height of the garden store has been lowered by 400 mm. But the reduction in height was due to the impact on the listed building and street scene. The Council decided that the development originally built did not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Therefore, I cannot say Mr X has been caused injustice as a result of the higher garden store being in place until recently.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman