Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s request for enforcement action in relation to a planning breach at a neighbouring property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a planning breach at a neighbouring property before the work complained about had been completed. He says the Council’s response only referred to a building structure on site and not the different issue he was complaining about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about his neighbour’s development which was not being built in accordance with the approved plans. He complained about a building structure and about ground level changes and retaining walls.
7. The Council explained the structure was allowed under permitted development rights. With regard to the issue of the retaining walls and ground level changes, at the end of its enforcement investigation the Council wrote to Mr X explain that, while a breach of what had been approved, the retaining walls and ground level changes had been assessed but were not considered to result in significant planning harm such that enforcement action was required.
8. It is for the Council to decide whether it is expedient to take enforcement action and here it decided it was not. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and it is not our role to review the merits of it. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
9. In response to my initial enquiries about this matter, the Council has confirmed that while its view is that the walls do not result in significant planning harm in their current form, if further works are carried out to them and Mr X reports this, it will open a new enforcement case for investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman