Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control and a statutory nuisance. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible planning breach at her neighbour’s property. Ms X also complained her neighbour regularly has bonfires which impact her 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, 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 about planning conditions not being complied with and explained why it did not consider there had been a breach. I understand Ms X may disagree, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Ms X has also complained about the safety of an outbuilding at her neighbour’s property. However, the Council decided further action was not necessary as the building is not accessible to the public and not considered dangerous. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
10. Ms X has complained about bonfires at her neighbour’s property and says her neighbour is not complying with the conditions of their Environmental Agency License. If Ms X is concerned the conditions are not being complied with, she can report this to the Environment Agency as this is the appropriate body to deal with the matter.
11. I am satisfied the Council’s environmental protection team has also looked into Ms X’s concerns and has not found evidence of a statutory nuisance. Ms X can contact environmental protection if there are new issues that she believes may amount to a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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