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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of any delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X says the Council failed to properly look into his concerns and he has suffered financial losses because of the Council’s actions.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach of planning control. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take formal enforcement action as it did not consider the breaches caused material harm. The Council also said it was likely permission for the changes would be granted if an application was made.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not necessary. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X has complained about how long it took the Council to look into his concerns and says it did not properly communicate with him. However, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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 any delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman