Summary: Mr X says the Council provided an apathetic response to his concerns about unauthorised development at a neighbouring property. There was fault by the Council because the planning enforcement team delayed responding to his concerns while other departments or persons may not have responded at all. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X acts on behalf of his mother. Mr X says a neighbour built an outbuilding described as a games room wider than it should be and it encroached on his parents’ land. He wrote to the planning department about this and other concerns he had about the building work but says he received an apathetic response.
2. Mr X also says the Council has not visited the site in months despite saying it would monitor the building wok. Mr X says the Council is incompetent or the neighbour has officers in his pocket.
3. Mr X says the building control department did not respond to his emails at all. He also wrote to the Leader of the Council but says he did not receive a response.
4. Mr X wants an independent investigation into the planning department’s apathy and whether there are any grounds to an allegation of corruption. Mr X wants an apology for the Council’s lack of action. He wants the Council to explain why it has taken months for it to check on the building work of the neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council. I considered the Council’s comments on the draft decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Planning enforcement law and guidance

8. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary.
9. A breach of planning control is defined in section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) as:
• The carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• Failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
10. Where the breach involves carrying out development without permission, the authority may serve an Enforcement Notice if it is expedient to do so under section172 of the Act. It is for the planning authority to decide whether it is expedient to take action.
11. The government’s current guidance on planning enforcement is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and, in more detail, in its online guidance, ‘Ensuring effective enforcement’. This makes clear enforcement action is discretionary and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

Background

12. Mr X contacted the Council about possible unauthorised development in a neighbouring property. The Council opened a planning enforcement investigation.
13. Mr X was dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation. He wrote to the planning enforcement officer and received a response which he found unsatisfactory. He wrote further to the planning enforcement department but there was a delay of a few months before he received a reply.
14. Mr X also wrote to the building control department and the Leader of the Council. Neither the building control department nor the Leader of the Council replied.
15. The planning enforcement department apologised for the delay when it responded. It explained the planning enforcement action it had taken to that point. It also responded directly to the issues raised by Mr X regarding outbuildings at the property which was the subject of the complaint.
16. Mr X remained dissatisfied and so the matter was escalated to the final stage of the Council’s complaints process. The Council’s final complaint response explained the planning enforcement investigation had remained open. The Council had arranged a site visit by the planning enforcement team.
17. The Council established the games room was being used as self contained accommodation. This led officers to conclude the use of the outbuilding was technically unlawful and so subject to further enforcement action. The Council explained the enforcement action it could take.
18. Mr X queries why the Council did not act before the neighbour built the games room wider than was set out in the approved plans. Mr X feels the Council dismissed his concerns and was incompetent.

Finding

19. I do not find fault with the Council’s responses to the various issues Mr X raised about the status of the outbuilding(s) at the subject property. The Council has a power to take enforcement action but not a duty to do so. This means it will not automatically take action on identified breaches of planning control.
20. The nature of the Council’s power also means it does not routinely monitor developments for possible breaches of planning control. The Council takes a reactive approach in common with many local planning authorities. I do not find fault because the Council did not monitor the neighbouring property to ensure development was in accordance with the approved plans.
21. However, I find there was unreasonable delay by the planning enforcement department in responding to Mr X. The building control department and the Leader of the Council may not have responded at all to Mr X. While the department and the Leader may have assumed the matter was for the planning enforcement team to deal with, it would have been courteous to write to Mr X to let him know the matter would be dealt with by the planning enforcement team.
22. The planning enforcement team apologised to Mr X for the delay. I consider the apology was the appropriate remedy for the understandable frustration Mr X felt. I do not find there is now significant injustice caused to Mr X that warrants further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.
23. Mr X made the planning enforcement complaint to the Council and wants to know the outcome of the planning enforcement complaint. The Council should now write to him to inform him of the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault by the Council. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman