Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to a report of a breach of planning control and subsequent complaint. There is no evidence of fault in the decision not to take enforcement action. The Council’s apology for the delays is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council delayed in considering his report of a breach of planning control. It also delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X says his privacy has been compromised and his property devalued. He wants the breach corrected or compensation for financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Guidance on planning enforcement

6. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary.
7. Section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) defines a breach of planning control as:
• The carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• Failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
8. The government’s current guidance on planning enforcement is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and, in more detail, in its online guidance, ‘Ensuring effective enforcement’. This makes clear enforcement action is discretionary and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

What happened

9. Mr X told the Council his neighbour has installed a window in their home without planning permission. He says this has breached his privacy and devalued his home. Mr X wants the breach rectified. If this is not possible he wants compensation for the drop in property value.
10. The Council delayed in acting on Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control. This is fault.
11. However, it confirms it has now made an external inspection of the site. The window is covered with obscure film. It has decided therefore not to take enforcement action. The Council also confirms it has written to the neighbour advising the windows must be obscured in forever, otherwise a new enforcement case will be registered against their property.
12. I do not find fault with the planning enforcement decision itself. As enforcement action is not mandatory but discretionary it is for the Council to consider whether it was expedient to act on the identified breach of planning control. The Council has given reasons for not taking further action. This is a decision it is entitled to take.
13. Mr X wants the window removed or financial compensation. But given the Council has explained the reason for its enforcement decision, we cannot achieve either of the desired outcomes.
14. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the delay in considering his report of a breach of planning control and his complaint. As it has made the decision not to take enforcement action, I consider an apology is an acceptable remedy for the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no fault in the decision not to enforcement action. And we consider in this case an apology is a suitable remedy for the delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman