Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has decided to progress the matter, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action despite refusing a variation of condition application relating to drainage at a site she overlooks. She says her land becomes saturated from the run-off from this neighbouring development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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 Mrs X and the Council, which included an update on the current status of the enforcement case.
• information about the variation of condition application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. They may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
6. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained that following its refusal of the variation of condition application, the applicant entered into discussions (including with the Lead Local Flood Authority), and agreed to undertake 12 months of groundwater testing to support a future application for drainage works at the site. The Council therefore decided to pause the service of an enforcement notice. Upon completion of the testing period in June 2026, the Council believes it is reasonable to expect the submission of an application by September 2026. It says all efforts will then be made to determine the application at the earliest opportunity. If the application is refused, an Enforcement Notice will be served subject to any appeal that may be submitted.
7. The Council is entitled to use its professional judgement to decide what actions/steps it thinks are appropriate to progress this enforcement case to a conclusion, and I have seen no fault in how it reached its decision. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body, or tell the Council how to operate its services. An investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve a substantively different outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve a substantively different or worthwhile outcome for her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman