Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action against reports of planning breaches. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with a breach 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X lives on a newly developed housing estate. He claims the developers have not complied with their planning conditions, including inadequate drainage, differences in landscaping, and incorrect planting.

Mr X complains the Council failed to enforce against the planning breaches.

7. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. 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.
8. 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.
9. Here, the Council have investigated the alleged breaches. They confirmed the drainage was built in accordance with the approved plans and have explained there was a blocked ditch on a neighbouring field which had resulted in excess surface water and that this has now been fixed.
10. The Council have also investigated the landscaping and planting and decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action at this time because the development is still ongoing, and the developers have stated they will carry out remedial work in the correct planting season. The Council have agreed to monitor the site over the next 12 months.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant an investigation. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach and the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide not to take enforcement action. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but as the Council properly considered whether it was necessary to take enforcement action, we cannot find fault with the decision itself.
12. There appears to be some fault with the Council’s stage two complaint response. This is because the Council referenced an appeals process but there is no right of appeal against a decision not to service an enforcement notice.
13. However, an investigation is not proportionate as the likely fault did not cause Mr X any significant injustice. This is because there is no evidence Mr X tried to pursue an appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman