Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to a breach of planning control in a conservation area, or the associated complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way Council decided to handle the enforcement matter, and the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged faults by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, says the Council failed to take appropriate planning enforcement action against a satellite dish erected in the Conservation Area where she lives, and failed to adequately respond to her associated complaint.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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:
• Mrs B’s complaint to the Ombudsman, and the additional information she submitted on 16 March 2020;
• The complaint correspondence between Mrs B and the Council;
• A ‘street-view’ image on the internet, which shows the satellite dish on the front elevation of the property in question;
• Mrs B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Background to planning enforcement action

4. 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. Government guidance says:

“Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework July 2018, paragraph 58)

Summary of what happened

5. In early-June 2019, Mrs B contacted the Council to report a breach of planning control; a satellite dish had been erected on the front elevation of a nearby property in her road, which forms part of a conservation area.
6. The Council says it sought to make contact with the housing association which owns the property, and the tenant who was responsible for having the satellite dish installed. After sending several letters, the Council says contact was eventually established, and with pressure applied by both the Council and the housing association, the tenant agreed to arrange for the dish to be repositioned.
7. The tenant paid the satellite dish company to reposition the dish. The work was due to be undertaken in October 2019, but the satellite dish company rescheduled this. When the company did attend on 5 December 2018, the operative was not qualified to undertake the work.
8. The dish was eventually repositioned on 3 January 2020.
9. Meantime, Mrs B had submitted a stage 1 complaint on 22 November 2019. The Council responded on 12 December 2019, explaining what had been happening and the reasons why it had not pursued formal enforcement action.
10. Mrs B escalated her complaint to Stage 2 on 30 December, and the Council responded on 30 January 2020.

Assessment

11. I appreciate Mrs B disagrees with the informal enforcement approach adopted by the Council to deal with the breach of planning control. But the Ombudsman cannot question that judgement unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was made.
12. In my view, and having regard to paragraph 4 above, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with this enforcement case, to warrant the Ombudsman investigating the complaint. In reaching my view, I am particularly mindful that the Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement that an informal approach was a proportionate and appropriate way to deal with the matter. It took steps to contact the housing association and the tenant to seek their co-operation, and the delays caused by the satellite dish company were outside the Council’s control.
13. And even if there was fault in the Council’s handling of the case, I am not persuaded that the presence of the satellite dish itself, or the time taken to get it repositioned, has caused Mrs B a significant personal injustice in terms of the impact on her amenity. Similarly, I do not see that any fault in the Council’s complaint process has caused Mrs B a significant injustice.
14. For the above reasons, I do not consider the Ombudsman should pursue Mrs B’s complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the breach of planning control, and Mrs B has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged faults by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman