Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach 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 a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s reasons for not taking enforcement action. He says the Council has not been transparent and there have been delays.

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 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 agreed there had been a planning breach. However, the Council decided the unauthorised development did not cause unacceptable harm and it would not be proportionate or in the public interest to take formal action.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council has explained why it does not consider enforcement action necessary, and it was entitled to use its professional judgement. Councils also 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.
9. Mr X has complained the Council took too long to look into his concerns. But I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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