Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. She says the Council did not properly communicate with her and failed to take any action in relation to the unauthorised development. Ms X says the building has a significant impact on her property and the Council should serve her neighbour with an enforcement notice.

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 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 Ms 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 Ms X’s concerns about a possible breach of planning control. An enforcement officer visited the site, took photographs, and spoke to Ms X’s neighbour. However, the Council decided it had no grounds to take action in relation to the use of the building. It did agree the outbuilding erected by Ms X’s neighbour was unauthorised. But the Council decided the harm caused by the building was not significant enough to warrant formal enforcement action.
8. Ms X says the unauthorised development has a significant impact on her garden and she would have had the opportunity to object if her neighbour had submitted a planning application as they should have. But the Council has explained why it does not consider the development will cause significant harm to Ms X’s home. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it would not be expedient to take formal action against Ms X’s neighbour. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Ms X has also complained the Council failed to properly communicate with her and allowed her neighbour to continue with the unauthorised building after she complained. Ms X also says her neighbour trespassed onto her property. However, it is not for the Council to get involved with issues relating to trespass. I also do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged issues with how the Council communicated with her during its enforcement investigation as it ultimately decided the development was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman