Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Authority dealt with a breach of planning control and the Authority’s decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X says the development has a significant impact on his property and the area.

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 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 authority 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 authorities should act proportionately.
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 Authority looked into Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach. However, the Authority decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action as it said the development was acceptable in planning terms taking account of the impact on neighbouring properties and the area.
8. Mr X says the development encroaches on his property and the boundary wall has been partially demolished. But these are not material planning issues and will instead be private civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Authority’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Authority was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. Planning authorities also do not need to take action just because there has been a breach. As the Authority properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman