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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. He says there have been long delays and the unauthorised development impacts the area and a listed building.

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 Council.
4. I considered 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 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.
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 Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site and agreed permission was needed for the development. However, the Council said the unauthorised development did not cause irreparable harm to the listed building. After investigating the breach, the Council decided not to take further action.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not need to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has complained about how long it took the Council to investigate his concerns. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided formal enforcement action was not necessary.
10. Mr X has raised concerns about his home being damaged by the unauthorised development. However, this will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.

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