Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has delayed enforcing a neighbouring property despite a breach of planning permission.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that his neighbour has breached planning permission with a development next to his. The Council accepts that there is evidence of a breach and has sought a retrospective planning application from the neighbour to regularise the development.
6. The planning enforcement process we expect is as follows. We expect councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to react. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.
7. The law expects a Council to determine whether or not development as built would be acceptable in planning terms before commencing enforcement action. The Council’s decision therefore to seek a retrospective planning application is not maladministration.
8. The Council confirmed that an enforcement case has been opened and the Ombudsman would expect the Council to consider their next step if no retrospective planning application is submitted. Until that point is reached the Ombudsman could not determine the injustice caused by any alleged delay.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman