Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against her neighbour who she says has built an extension over her boundary.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. 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. National government guidance to planning authorities stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body against councils’ planning or enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was fault with how its decisions were made.
8. The Council investigated Miss X’s report of a breach of planning control, including visiting the site. The Council considered the impact of there not being a 150mm gap between the extension and the boundary. It also considered what could be built under permitted development rights.
9. Having visited the site and considered Miss X’s concerns the Council decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action.
10. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take formal action as she says the extension encroaches over the boundary onto her property. But the Council is entitled to apply its professional judgement, and the issue of encroachment is a private civil matter between Miss X and her neighbours, not a matter for the Council. There is not enough evidence that the Council’s decision-making process involved fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman