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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that his neighbour failed to comply with the approved plans for their development, which he says impacts on his privacy and presents a hazard during adverse weather. He reported his concerns to the Council and is unhappy it decided not to take any formal action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control but are under no obligation to do so. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission, or where they have planning permission but have not build the development in accordance with the approved plans.
7. It is for the relevant council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and how to address it. Councils have discretion to deal with minor breaches informally and may decide to take no formal action if they consider it is not ‘expedient’ to do so. This may be where they decide any breach is not significant and has no harmful impact on any third parties.
8. In this case, the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns. It decided his neighbour had failed to comply with the plans it approved for the development but that the breach was minor and caused Mr X no significant harm. It therefore decided the breach did not warrant enforcement action. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns and I have seen no evidence of fault affecting its decision. We cannot therefore question it.
9. Ultimately, if Mr X suffers damage to his property or personal injury as a result of his neighbour’s development this would be a private civil matter between him and his neighbour. We could not hold the Council responsible for this or recommend a remedy for it.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman