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 and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for a breach of planning control. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s enforcement investigation. He says there were long delays, and the Council did not keep him updated regarding its progress. Mr X says the development is an eyesore and impacts his amenity and the value of his property.

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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. The officer agreed the finish of the building did not comply with the planning permission granted. However, the Council decided not to take enforcement action as it said the breach was a minor technical breach and did not have a significant impact on the area or neighbouring amenity.
7. Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it was not expedient to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X has also complained about how long it took the Council to investigate the breach and says it failed to keep him up to date regarding its progress. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not required.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman