Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. 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 its decision not 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 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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The Council has carried out enforcement investigations in relation to potential planning breaches at the property. A retrospective planning application was made in relation to one of the potential breaches. The application was refused as insufficient information was provided with the application. Following the refusal of the application, the Council re-opened its enforcement investigation. However, it decided it would not be expedient or in the public interest to take further action. It said the works did not impact the significance of the listed building and permission would likely be granted if an application with the necessary details was provided.
9. The Council also looked into Mr X’s concerns about unauthorised work to the listed building. An officer visited the site and decided there was no evidence of a breach. The Council closed the enforcement case as it said it had no grounds to take enforcement action.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions not to take enforcement action. But I am satisfied the Council properly considered if it should take formal action against the property owner and it has explained its reasons for closing the enforcement cases. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard and councils do not need to take enforcement 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.

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