Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of any delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his concerns and there were delays. He says it ignored planning guidance and the evidence available. Mr X says the development has a significant impact on his 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
• 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. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach.
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 looked into Mr X’s concerns and an officer visited the site to take measurements. The Council decided the development complied with permitted development rights and therefore did not need planning permission.
8. Mr X disputes the Council’s measurements and says it has misinterpreted permitted development guidance and legislation. However, I am satisfied the Council has properly explained how it measured the development and why it considered it permitted development. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s enforcement decision. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has complained about how long it took the Council to look into his concerns and make an enforcement decision. But I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided there had not been a planning breach and enforcement action was not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of any delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman