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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and a planning application.

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 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. 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 agreed there had been a planning breach. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. It said the unauthorised outbuilding did not cause material harm or have an adverse impact on the surrounding area and it would likely grant permission for the development if it was requested.
8. 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 enforcement action was not necessary. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
9. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s decision to grant permission to extend the property and change the use of the land. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the area, however the officer decided the development would be acceptable.
10. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development and if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman