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

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control and its decision not to take further action. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s reasons for not pursuing formal action and says it has failed to consider the cumulative impact of the breaches at the site.

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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 action just because there has been a breach.
7. 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.
8. Ms X has contacted the Council about many planning breaches at the site near her home. The Council looked into the concerns Ms X raised and issued enforcement notices for some of the breaches at the site. However, it has since decided not to proceed further in relation to these matters. It has also said enforcement action is not necessary for the other possible breaches reported at the site.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s enforcement decisions. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement, and I am satisfied it has properly explained why further action is not necessary. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take further enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Ms X says the Council has not shown how it will uphold her human rights. The Ombudsman cannot decide if a council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Councils will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has considered the impact the breaches have on Ms X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman