Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a developer for failing to meet conditions placed on a planning permission for a development close to the complainant’s home. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms H complained to the Council that it had failed to take enforcement action against a developer who had built a wall using composite material without complying with the relevant planning condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms H and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms H says the Council failed to taken enforcement action against a developer who built a wall without complying with the relevant planning condition. The developer also used a composite material instead of natural material which would be in keeping with the surrounding conservation area.
6. The Council considered the report of a breach of planning control. It says it checked with its highways contractor which is satisfied the wall complies with safety designs. It recognises the wall should be built with natural stone. However, it says:

“…the composite stone would weather and there were similar more recent developments in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, this would make it difficult to make a strong case in defence of any subsequent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate or indeed defend in the Courts for formal enforcement action to make the developer take the wall down. The officer was also of the view that although this was in historic Boscastle and this technically breached Conservation guidance it was not, in her opinion, at the heart of the historic Town.”

7. It decided not to take further enforcement action.
8. Government guidance states that enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. The decisive issue for the Local Planning Authority should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the public interest lays in protecting the land or buildings from the unauthorised use.
9. In this case the Council decided not to exercise its power of planning enforcement because the breach and harm was not enough to warrant enforcement action. This is a decision it is entitled to make. We do not comment on judgements councils make unless there is fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms H’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process which warrants an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman