Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. It is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered any significant injustice in relation to a recent planning breach.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. He says there have been delays and the Council failed to properly look into his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr 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.
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 Mr X’s concerns before deciding not to take enforcement action. An enforcement officer visited the site and changes were made to the pump room that had been built to bring it in line with permitted development rights. The Council accepted the extension required planning permission, but it decided not to take enforcement action as it said the development would not cause material harm.
8. Mr X says the development has caused damage to his property. He has also raised concerns about the party wall. However, these will be private civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not necessary. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X has also complained that his neighbour has built another outbuilding without planning permission. Mr X says the Council has taken too long to investigate his concerns and allowed his neighbour to continue building the unauthorised development. However, as the Council’s enforcement investigation has not concluded it is not yet possible to say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any fault with the Council’s investigation of this breach. This is because the Council may still decide the outbuilding is acceptable and that formal enforcement action is not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is not yet possible to determine if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in relation to a more recent breach at the site.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman