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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near her home. Ms X says the Council has failed to address the breaches and the unauthorised developments are impacting her home. Ms X says the matter has impacted her health and wellbeing.

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 Ms 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. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
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. In this case, the Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and enforcement officers have visited the site and contacted the site owner. The Council has said internal work was being carried out to rectify some of the breaches. The site owner has also made retrospective planning applications for other unauthorised work. It is not unusual for councils to request applications to regularise planning breaches and Ms X has had the opportunity to comment on the applications so her concerns can be considered.
9. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it was not expedient to take formal enforcement action and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered the planning breaches, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Ms X says the Council should have issued a temporary stop notice. She also says the Council has not complied with the Human Rights Act. But the Council has explained why it did not consider a stop notice necessary. The Ombudsman cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the impact the unauthorised development has on Ms X and her property.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman