Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about planning enforcement at a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a planning breach at a neighbouring property.

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. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X informed the Council of planning breaches at a neighbouring property. Mr X complains the Council did not take enforcement action or require the property to be built in accordance with the original plans.
7. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
8. 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.
9. In this case, the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and accepted there had been a planning breach. The Council determined a retrospective planning application was more appropriate than enforcement action
10. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not needed and councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, there is insufficient evidence of fault.
11. Mr X also complains of poor and delayed communication from the Council. The Council have apologised to Mr X for communication delays. This is a suitable remedy and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman