Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigates planning breaches. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. Mr X has also complained that the Council does not monitor sites that have been subject to planning conditions and where there have been previous breaches.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. 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. In this case, Mr X reported an unauthorised development in the area where he lives. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and the developer applied for retrospective permission for the development. It is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application to regularise an unauthorised development and councils do not have to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the retrospective application before granting temporary permission for the development. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on the area and neighbouring properties and explained why the development was acceptable. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment in this regard.
7. Mr X says the Council should be monitoring the site for potential breaches and to ensure planning conditions are complied with. While councils do have a duty to investigate potential planning breaches if they are reported, planning authorities would not usually monitor sites after planning permission is approved to ensure there are no breaches.
8. Mr X says the Council does not keep sufficient records of enforcement cases and the information available on its website about its investigations is limited. However, the Council does not need to publish its full enforcement files which will likely contain confidential details. Furthermore, even if I did agree there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice as a result.
9. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. 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

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman