Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on a breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council delayed in deciding not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. He says this resulted in a loss of revenue and escalated costs for building work.
2. Mr X also says the Council failed to follow government guidelines for local authorities on enforcement and post planning matters.

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.

(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

6. Following the receipt of a report of breach of planning control, a Planning Officer visited Mr X’s business property. The Council confirms the Officer introduced herself to those present and measured the outside of the building.
7. The Officer decided the building was 0.4 metres higher than permitted. They considered this was a substantial change to the building and invited Mr X to apply for retrospective planning permission. The Council did not issue a Stop Notice.
8. Following completion of the ground levels, Mr X invited the Council to make another inspection.
9. The Planning Officer visited and again measured the outside of the building. As it was still higher than permitted by the approved plans the Council again invited a retrospective planning application.
10. Mr X put in a retrospective planning application. This was not validated as Mr X had not paid the fee. Mr X then withdrew the application.
11. The Council considered whether to take enforcement action. Officers consulted with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. They decided, while there is a breach of planning control, it is not expedient to take enforcement action.
12. Mr X withdrew his retrospective planning application in June. The Council decided not to take enforcement action in November. I acknowledge that Mr X would have preferred a quicker decision, however I consider the time taken to come to a decision on the breach of planning control is accounted for by:
• the Council’s invitation to apply for retrospective planning permission
• Mr X’s decision to put in and then withdraw an application; and
• consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee and local councillors
13. Also, there is no specific time frame stated in the government guidance or the Council’s Enforcement Policy in which the Council is required to make a decision on whether to take action.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed leading to its decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman