Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with possible breaches of planning control at a site next to his home. Mr X says he has been misled by the enforcement officer and incorrectly told enforcement action had been taken against his neighbour.

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. Councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a planning breach.
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. The Council contacted Mr X and said there had not been a breach in relation to some of the issues he raised and the developer intended to reduce the land levels at the site. Following this, the developer applied for a certificate of lawful development as they believed the work carried out at the site was permitted development and did not need planning permission. This application has since been approved.
8. Mr X says he was misled by the enforcement officer as he was told enforcement action would be taken. But Mr X says there was no evidence of this on the Council’s website, and it instead allowed his neighbour to make a further planning application. However, we would not expect the Council to publish details of its enforcement investigation on its website, and it is not unusual for a site owner to submit a retrospective application to regularise a development or an application for a lawful development certificate to confirm if a proposed or existing development is lawful. I understand Mr X says he was told the site levels would be reduced. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the Council has since confirmed the landscaping at the site did not require planning permission.
9. Mr X says the Council has favoured the applicant and not properly considered his objections to the application for a lawful development certificate. However, when considering the application, the Council needed to decide if the development met the necessary requirements to be permitted development. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application and the case officer set out why the development complied with permitted development rights.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide if it needed to take enforcement action and if the works were permitted development.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman