Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. He says there were delays before the Council looked into his concerns and it based its decision not to take formal action on incorrect information. Mr X says he has been caused considerable stress by the matter.

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 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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 or changed the use of a building 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.
6. There are time limits for taking enforcement action. Depending on the type of breach, it will become immune from enforcement action after either four or 10 years.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about the possible planning breach before deciding not to take further action. An enforcement officer visited the site on three occasions and gathered further information. However, the Council decided the evidence showed the use of the building had been ongoing for 10 years and was therefore immune from enforcement action.
8. Mr X disagrees and says the Council based its decision on inaccurate information and it did not give him the opportunity to provide evidence to support his claims. However, the Council says it will reassess the case if Mr X is able to provide conclusive information regarding the use of the site.
9. Mr X also says there were long delays before the Council looked into his concerns. However, even if I were to say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result as the Council ultimately decided not to take formal enforcement action.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman