Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control and a request to make a Tree Preservation Order. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

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 has also raised concerns about the safety of the building and says the Council has not considered his request to make a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. However, the Council decided there had not been a breach as the building was permitted development.
8. Mr X says the Council did not visit his property. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when considering if there has been a planning breach. Furthermore, the Council was satisfied the work was permitted development and therefore it did not need to consider the impact on neighbouring properties as the building did not need planning permission.
9. 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 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.
10. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about the safety of the building. A building control officer has visited the site and is working with Mr X’s neighbour to address any issues.
11. Mr X says a hedge has been removed from the boundary without a party wall agreement. However, it is not for the Council to get involved with boundary issues and this will instead be a civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
12. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his request to make a TPO. However, the Council has confirmed the request will be considered and I do not consider the injustice suffered because of the delay significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
13. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling and says it has not responded to all his concerns. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice because of the delay in dealing with his request for a TPO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman