Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case concerning a shed built to the front of the property opposite him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, 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))

3. In relation to the first bullet point, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• the Council’s ‘Planning Enforcement Plan’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council has decided not to pursue planning enforcement action against the shed.
6. But the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Rather, we consider if there was any fault in the way the decision was made.
7. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
8. Here, the Council has explained that although the shed does constitute a breach of planning control, it’s size and appearance does not have a detrimental impact on the area and causes little planning harm. As such, it was not expedient to pursue enforcement action. The Council was entitled to reach this professional judgement, even if Mr X disagrees with it. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached this decision to justify starting an investigation.
9. And whilst I note it took approximately 2 years to bring the enforcement case to a conclusion, I am not persuaded that Mr X was caused a significant personal injustice as a result of any delay. So, we will not pursue this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman