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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X says the unauthorised development impacts his property and the area and he is concerned it may damage the boundary wall.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. However, the Council decided not to take further action. It said one of the structures had been in place for many years and therefore it could not take any action. It said the detached structure in the garden did not cause harm and did not justify enforcement action.
9. Mr X says his neighbour should be required to apply for planning permission. He also believes the structure may damage the boundary wall. However, councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Concerns about land ownership and property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
10. 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. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman