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 with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for a breach of planning control. Mr X says the unauthorised development has a significant impact on his property and he believes the Council has not taken formal action due to an error it made on a previous planning application. Mr X also says the Council took too long to look into his concerns about the breach.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action. An officer visited the site in response to Mr X’s concerns and agreed the development built by Mr X’s neighbour required planning permission. However, the Council decided not to take enforcement action as it said the development was acceptable in planning terms and did not cause significant harm. The Council also explained why it does not consider the development will have an unacceptable impact on Mr X’s property.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not necessary. 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 should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X says the Council took too long to look into his concerns about the unauthorised development. However, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice because of any delays in the Council’s enforcement investigation as it ultimately decided formal action was not necessary.
9. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman