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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action against her neighbour for a breach of planning control. Miss X says her neighbour’s dormer extension has not been built in line with the approved plans and has a significant impact on her home.

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.

(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 Miss 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. 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.
6. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. In this case, the Council granted planning permission to Miss X’s neighbour for a dormer extension. However, the development was not built in line with the approved plans and the Council issued an enforcement notice. The notice required the dormer to either be removed or rebuilt in line with the planning permission.
8. Miss X contacted the Council after the revised structure was completed. She said the development was still not in line with the plans and had a significant impact on her property.
9. An enforcement officer considered Miss X’s concerns and recommended further action should not be taken in relation to the breach. The officer said the difference between the completed development and the planning permission granted would not cause any significant harm and it would not be in the public interest to take further action. The officer also considered it unlikely a prosecution would be successful. The case was referred to the Council’s development control committee and members voted to accept the officer’s recommendation.
10. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take further enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman