Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on reported breaches of planning control. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The Council granted planning permission for a development near Mr X’s home. Mr X says the developer has deviated from the approved plans and has not kept to the conditions relating to work at the property. He has made many reports and complains the Council has failed to address the breaches.
2. He says this has caused stress and disruption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils must investigate reports of planning breaches but have discretion as to how to deal with them. Formal enforcement action is discretionary and decisions about whether to take formal action rest with officers empowered to make those decisions.
7. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers and suggests formal action should be a last result. Councils should also only take formal action when it would be a proportionate response to the breach.
8. The breaches Mr X has reported fall within two categories- deviation from the approved plans and breaches of conditions relating to the building work itself. The Council accepts the developer has committed breaches of planning control but it has decided, at least to date, to deal with these issues informally.
9. Councils do not have to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach and are entitled to use their professional judgement to decide not to take formal enforcement action if they do not consider it necessary or proportionate.
10. The Council has clearly considered Mr X’s concerns about the developer’s deviation from the approved plans and its response to Mr X’s complaint explained why it would not take formal action. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the Council’s approach but his disagreement is not evidence of fault. It is the Council’s choice whether it should take formal action and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision in this case. We cannot therefore criticise it.
11. Councils may impose conditions as part of the planning process to help lessen the impact of building works for approved development, but the conditions cannot protect against the impact of the works entirely. In this case the Council attached conditions to the planning permission regarding the building works but Mr X says the developer has breached them. The Council has considered Mr X’s reports and has taken such action as it considers appropriate to address the breaches. Again Mr X disagrees with the Council’s approach to the issue but I have seen no evidence of fault in the process. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint explains the reasons behind its decision and the law does not allow us to question its professional judgement on the issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has explained the reasons behind its decisions and it is unlikely we could add to this, or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman