Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated the reports of a breach of planning control to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly investigate her report of a breach of planning control and closed the case without consulting her.
2. She wants the Council to take enforcement action against her neighbour for running a business from their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
7. 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.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. The Council confirms it investigated Miss X’s report that her neighbour was running a car sales business from his home. It confirms the investigation included:
• obtaining evidence from Miss X
• obtaining evidence from the neighbour
• a period of case monitoring; and
• several site visits.
10. The planning enforcement officer decided no material change of use had occurred at the property. This means that, although car sales may be occurring, the primary use of the property remains as a residential home. The case was closed.
11. Subsequently, the Council conducted a new enforcement investigation at the same property. The neighbour provided evidence that a business address was being used for car sales. Officers visited the site several times and, while there were cars on the property, there were none advertised for sale.
12. The Council closed the case and advised Miss X there is no breach of planning control.
13. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to take enforcement action.
14. As the Council has investigated the reports, sought evidence and visited the site several times, it is unlikely we could find fault in the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated the reports of breaches of planning control leading to its decision that no breach has occurred.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman