Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of a breach of planning control. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action in response to his reports of a breach of planning conditions on a construction site near his home. He says the matter caused him distress and the Council should compensate him for this.

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary. It is for the planning authority to decide whether it is expedient to take action.
7. Mr X complained about noise disturbance from machinery on a nearby construction site. He said the machinery was operating outside of the permitted construction hours approved as part of the planning conditions.
8. The Council investigated his complaint. In its response to Mr X, it said it had not found any evidence the developer was breaching the permitted construction hours and invited him to provide further information to help the Council target its monitoring visits and gather evidence of any breach. It said it had reminded the developer to adhere to the construction hours.
9. In a further complaint response, the Council said Mr X had not provided any further information, but it would continue to make speculative visits to gather any evidence of a breach of construction hours.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Any enforcement action is discretionary and we cannot criticise a decision as long as the Council has appropriately considered the matter. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns, but as it had no evidence the developer was operating machinery outside of permitted construction hours, decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has reached this decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman