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 complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control. Ms X says the Council has allowed her neighbour to violate planning rules and the unauthorised developments impact her property. Ms X says the developments also encroach on her property and her home has been damaged.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ms 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, the Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. The Council decided some of the work carried out was permitted development and did not require planning permission. It decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action in relation to other development carried out by Ms X’s neighbour.
9. Ms X says her neighbour has encroached on her property and caused damage to her home. But land ownership disputes and claims of property damage will be private civil matters between Ms X and her neighbour.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council has explained why it did not consider enforcement action necessary, and it was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if it needed to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman