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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near his home. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly consider his concerns and the unauthorised use of an outbuilding impacts his property. Mr X also says the Council has failed to take action in relation to his concerns about development being carried out without the necessary listed building consent and says it has not considered his complaint about a possible statutory nuisance 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 Mr 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.
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. In this case, Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned about his neighbour carrying out unauthorised development without the necessary listed building consent. He also said an outbuilding at the property was being used as a holiday let without permission.
9. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an enforcement officer has visited the site. However, the Council has decided it would not be expedient to take formal action in relation to the development Mr X says was carried out without listed building consent. It also found the use of the building as a holiday let had ended and so there were no grounds for it to take enforcement action.
10. Mr X says the property was advertised as a holiday let when it was sold. But the Council did look into Mr X’s concerns and confirmed there was no ongoing breach in relation to the use of the building. The new owners of the property have also been informed the change of use would need permission.
11. 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 and councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
12. Mr X says the Council has failed to look into his concerns about a possible statutory nuisance at the site. But the Council’s Environmental Health team did consider the matter before deciding further action was not necessary. Mr X also says building regulations have not been complied with. However, Mr X’s neighbour did not use the Council’s building control service for the development.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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