Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and retrospective planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to properly investigate his concerns about breaches of planning controls at a neighbouring property and its decision not to take enforcement action. He also complained he has been subject to false allegations and the Council had treated him differently from his neighbour. Mr X states the situation has caused stress for himself and his wife. Mr X would like the Council to take enforcement action.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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. Mr X complained to the Council in summer 2024 about how it had responded to reports of breaches of planning controls at a neighbouring property. The Council had recently rejected a planning application for the property. Mr X also complained that the Council contacted him several times regarding construction and environmental matters at his property.
6. The Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place more than 12 months prior to the complainant becoming aware of them. In this case, Mr X complained about the issue in summer 2024. Therefore, matters that took place before summer 2023 may be regarded as a late complaint.
7. The Council told Mr X there was an ongoing planning enforcement investigation. It explained it would assess the nature of a planning breach and potential harm resulting from the breach. It stated the harm resulting from any non-compliance with the planning condition in this case would be considered a low priority.
8. The Council provided a second complaint response to Mr X which informed him the enforcement investigation had finished following the applicant’s successful planning appeal.
9. Planning enforcement is discretionary, and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
10. The Council’s complaint responses acknowledged the actions it had taken in relation to Mr X’s property. It stated that it had reviewed their actions and could not find evidence that Mr X had been treated differently from his neighbour.
11. The Council has acted in accordance with its Planning Enforcement Policy. I consider that there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman