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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control. Mr X says the Council has failed to take action to resolve the breach and there have been delays. Mr X says his property is impacted by the unauthorised development and his home has lost value.

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 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 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. Mr X says the Council has failed to take any action in relation to the breach. However, councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a planning breach and it is not unusual to request a retrospective application to regularise a development.
7. Mr X is unhappy with how long the matter has been ongoing for. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays. The Council has now decided the changes to the plans originally approved are acceptable and granted retrospective permission.
8. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman