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 Mrs X, has complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against her neighbour for a breach of planning control. Mrs X says her neighbour’s outbuilding was not built in line with the approved plans and a business is being run from the building without 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs 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 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. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation. However, if the development is considered unacceptable, it may be necessary to take other action to secure compliance such as serving a breach of condition or enforcement notice.
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, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mrs X’s concerns before deciding not to take formal enforcement action. An enforcement officer visited the site, took measurements and also met with the building’s owner. However, the Council said the width and length of the annex and the distance between the building and boundary with Mrs X’s home were in line with the approved plans. The officer also considered Mrs X’s concerns about the building being rented out but decided this did not constitute a breach as the use of the building had not materially changed. The enforcement officer did identify some discrepancies with the development as the building has been built slightly further away from the main house than it should have been. Mrs X’s neighbour has been invited to submit a retrospective application to regularise the development. The Council has said it is also carrying out further investigations based on additional information Mrs X has recently provided.
8. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action at this stage. But councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. The enforcement officer is also entitled to use their professional judgment to decide formal action is not yet necessary and is continuing to consider any additional information Mrs X provides. As the Council properly considered Mrs X’s concerns about a possible breach of planning control, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman