Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible 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 possible breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X says the building has a significant impact and is not in keeping with the area. Mr X says the Council has not acted in line with its policies and government guidance.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 or not complied with planning conditions. 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. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
6. 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 but decided there had not been a planning breach as the changes did not materially affect the external appearance of the building and did not meet the definition of development set out in the Town and Country Planning Act. The Council said the materials used for the extension would match the existing dwelling and therefore the planning conditions had also not been breached.
9. The Council has explained that even if it did agree there had been a breach, its decision not to take enforcement action would be the same as the harm caused by the changes to the building would not be sufficiently detrimental to the site or its surroundings to warrant enforcement action.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to 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