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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near his home. Mr X says his concerns have not been taken seriously and the Council has failed to properly investigate the breaches. Mr X says the site owner also continues to add extensions and outbuildings to their property without permission.

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 Mr 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. Councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and enforcement officers visited the site. The Council decided the outbuildings that had been constructed at the property complied with permitted development rights and therefore planning permission was not needed.
7. The Council found there had been a breach in relation to the use of the property. Therefore, a retrospective planning application was submitted for permission to operate a business from the property. The Council approved the application subject to conditions.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s enforcement investigation and says he was not told about the retrospective planning application. The Council has accepted it did not keep Mr X properly updated and did not tell him about the planning application. However, the Council has apologised which is a suitable remedy in the circumstances. I also do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because the Council failed to tell him about the retrospective application as it still considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring residents. Therefore, I consider it likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action and its decision to grant retrospective planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not necessary and that the retrospective application was acceptable.
10. Mr X says the site owner has continued to build on the site without permission. However, Mr X can report any further possible breaches to the Council’s enforcement team to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman