Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take enforcement action against breaches of planning conditions at a development site next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on the enforcement matters, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning conditions imposed on developments at a site next to his home.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can 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, which included the Council’s Stage 2 complaint response.
• the planning applications for the neighbouring site.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy about the way the neighbouring developments have been implemented. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body against Council decisions on planning enforcement cases. Rather, our role is to review the way the Council reached its decisions. If we decide there is not enough evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot question whether it should have reached a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
6. It is for councils to judge whether there is a breach of planning control. If there is a breach, councils have the discretion to take enforcement action to remedy it, but they are under no obligation to do so. In each case, councils have the discretion to decide whether further action is expedient. Government guidance is that councils should act proportionately when considering what action, if any, to take. There is no expectation councils should automatically enforce against every planning breach.
7. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on the planning enforcement case to justify starting an investigation. In particular, the Council’s Stage 2 complaint response explains why the 12-month deadline for implementing the new landscaping details had not yet been reached, and that the new fence had been the subject of an enforcement investigation. It also explained why the approval of a related variation of condition application meant it was no longer expedient to take action against the removal of an existing hedge.
8. And as noted above, we cannot dictate what action a council should take in response to any breach of planning control. We therefore cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking from his complaint, as we cannot make the Council enforce the planning conditions relating to the site.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way Council reached its decisions on the planning enforcement issues, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman