Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mrs X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council took too long to investigate a breach of planning control by her neighbour. She also complains the Council failed to take formal enforcement action against her neighbour.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mrs X reported her neighbours for a breach of planning control in early 2023. The Council investigated the breach in mid-2023 but took until early 2024 to confirm to Mrs X it would not take any formal enforcement action. It has apologised to Mrs X for the delay in notifying her of its decision but explained the breach is not, I its view, significant. It does not therefore consider formal action is in the public interest.
5. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She believes it should have stopped the development when she first reported it and forced her neighbour to apply for retrospective permission to regularise it. She also considers her neighbour should be punished for failing to carry out the development in accordance with the approved plans.
6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
7. The Council has explained the reasons for its decision not to take formal enforcement action and it was a decision it was entitled to reach. Planning enforcement action is discretionary and the Council considers the breach is minor and that it would have granted planning permission for it anyway. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and we cannot therefore criticise it.
8. While the Council accepts it should have notified Mrs X of its decision sooner its delay did not cause Mrs X significant injustice. Had the Council notified Mrs X of its decision in mid-2023 Mrs X would have been aware the Council was not pursuing the breach further but she would be in the same position as she is now.
9. Mrs X’s concerns are also largely based on what could have happened to her property as a result of the unauthorised development and what may happen in the future if others decide not to carry out building works in accordance with approved plans. But we cannot recommend remedies for injustice that could have happened but did not, or for an injustice that may or may not happen in the future. We also do not consider any benefit Mrs X’s neighbour has from not facing formal action as an injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman