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

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says there have been long delays, and the Council has withheld information. She says the Council has failed to properly communicate with residents and has not acted transparently. Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X is unhappy with how long it is taking the Council to determine the planning application and says it is failing to properly communicate with residents. However, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of any delays. The Council has also been in ongoing contact with Ms X and updated her on the progress with the application. It has apologised for not responding to one of Ms X’s messages and explained why it did not consider it necessary to reply to an email Ms X sent about a road safety issue.
6. Ms X says the Council is not being transparent and has not shared information it received from the applicant with residents. But the Council has explained why the incomplete road safety audit has not been shared. Ms X will also have an opportunity to comment on the completed road safety audit once it is available.
7. I understand Ms X may be concerned about the impact of the proposed development. However, as the application has not yet been decided, it is not possible to say if Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of any fault with how the application has been dealt with or assessed. The Council may still decide the development is unacceptable and refuse planning permission.
8. Ms X has also complained about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action.
9. 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 breach.
10. 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.
11. In this case, the Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and agreed there had been a planning breach. However, it decided not to take formal enforcement action as it said the groundwork carried out did not cause significant harm. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman