Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. Ms X says the unauthorised development encroaches on her property and has a significant impact on her home.

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 Ms 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. 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 Ms X’s concerns and an officer visited the site and agreed the development had not been built in line with the approved plans. However, the Council decided that while the development was large and had a visual impact it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. It said the development would not cause sufficient harm to Ms X’s amenity or the area and it is likely planning permission would be granted if an application was received.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it was not expedient to take enforcement action. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Ms X says the unauthorised development encroaches on her land. However, it is not for the Council to get involved in landownership issues and this will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman