Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour. Mr X says he has been given contradictory advice by the Council and the development impacts his property.

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 information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
6. 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.
7. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. However, the Council decided the development had been built in line with the approved plans and there had not been a breach.
8. Mr X says he is in no doubt the development built does not comply with the approved plans. He says this has been confirmed by Council officers. However, while officers gave advice about the plans and what would amount to a planning breach, it was not confirmed that there had been a breach or that formal action was required. I am satisfied the Council properly investigated the potential breach and has explained why it will not take formal action against Mr X’s neighbour.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X has complained about delays by the Council. But I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided there had not been a planning breach and enforcement action was not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman