Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council chose not to take meaningful enforcement action against the creation of an unauthorised sports court and removal of a tree in a conservation area close to his home.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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. 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.
7. In this case, the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been breach of planning control by the creation of a hardstanding for a sports court. However, it considers the planning harm to the area caused by the hardstanding is low. It also explained to Mr X that if the property is completed on the site, the hardstanding would be permitted development. Therefore it decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action and require the removal of the hardstanding because:
   a) the harm to the area is low; and

b) the owner can reinstate the sports court as permitted development once the new property on the site is completed.

The Council confirms it has advised the owner of the planning regulations for the site.

8. The Council also confirms the owner removed a tree without permission. As this is within a conservation area this is an offence. It sought advice from its tree officer who considered the impact of the tree removal is not significant enough to justify enforcement action. However, it has issued the owner with a formal caution as an offence has been committed.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s enforcement decisions. But councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach and the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not need to take further action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take further action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his report of a breach of planning control to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman