Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. Ms X says the Council failed to act when the breach was first reported allowing the property to be demolished. Ms X says her home has been damaged and the gas and electric supply to neighbouring properties was impacted by the unauthorised work. Ms X says the problems she has experienced could have been avoided had the Council acted promptly when she reported the breach.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. Ms X contacted the Council as she was concerned about a property being demolished without permission. Ms X says there was a delay investigating the unauthorised work which led to the problems she has encountered. The Council says due to unforeseen issues there were no enforcement officers available when Ms X reported the breach. However, it says it is unlikely it would have visited the site straight away even if officers had been available and a stop notice to prevent the work from continuing was not necessary.
6. I understand Ms X may disagree, but I am satisfied the Council has properly explained why a stop notice was not needed. It was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard, and councils also do not need to take formal or immediate enforcement action just because there has been a breach. The Council has also since decided the development is acceptable and granted retrospective planning permission. Therefore, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays by the Council as it is likely its decision regarding the unauthorised work would have been the same had an officer been available and looked into Ms X’s concerns sooner.
7. Ms X says her home has been damaged by the development. But concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered any significant injustice because of any fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman