Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered reports of breaches of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against two lakes created on land above her home. She says she has suffered significant damage due to flooding causing financial loss and stress.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to:
• engage a specialist hydrologist to investigate the lakes for stability and the illegal impounding of water; and
• take relevant enforcement action against breaches of planning control.

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 Mrs 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 carried out 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 effective 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. Mrs X contacted the Council about two lakes created on land above her home without planning permission. She says this caused flooding at her home and is also concerned about the impact of the lake in ancient woodland.
9. The Council confirms it visited the lakes with officers from the local lead flood authority (LLFA). After the inspection the Council told Mrs X:
• The lakes were created without planning permission. However as this was more than four years ago, they are immune from enforcement action.
• The owner has removed a recently created additional spillway.
• Damage caused by an overspilling event has been repaired and one of the banks has been reinforced.
• The LLFA is satisfied there is no direct link between the lakes in their present form and recent flooding from extreme rainfall.

Having inspected the site more than once, and considering the position of the LLFA, the Council has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action against any remaining breaches of planning control on the site. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take,

10. I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not need to take enforcement action and councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her report of breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman