Summary: We will not investigate Mr X‘s complaint about planning enforcement and how the Council handled his complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning enforcement matter. Also, any injustice arising from the delay in responding to Mr X's complaint is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action about a structure he says breaches a planning condition. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact on local amenity or the conservation area, and the development has increased parking on his street. Mr X also says residents were denied the opportunity to comment through a public consultation process, and the Council has not provided clear information about whether, or when, the structure will be removed. Mr X also complains the Council delayed responding to his complaint. He wants the Council to require a new planning application and take enforcement action to address the alleged breach of planning control.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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. 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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council told Mr X it had considered the reported breach of the planning condition and had discussed the matter with the owners of the structure. The owners told the Council compliance with the condition was not viable. The Council considered the information available to it and decided it was not appropriate to take formal enforcement action. It decided the public benefit of keeping the structure outweighed the breach and enforcement action would not be a justified use of public resources. The Council also told Mr X planning permission had already been granted and a further planning application, with public consultation, would only be required if there were material changes to the approved development.
7. Planning enforcement action is discretionary. Councils may decide the nature of a breach is not enough to warrant enforcement action. The Council considered the reported breach and gave reasons for its decision not to act. We do not act as a planning appeal body and cannot question the merits of a properly made decision. On the available information, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify investigating.
8. Mr X also complained the Council delayed responding to his complaint. The Council accepted there was a delay and apologised. There is no evidence the delay affected the Council's consideration of the planning enforcement issue or caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. Therefore, further investigation of this matter is unlikely to achieve a different outcome or anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning enforcement matter. Also, any injustice arising from the delay in responding to Mr X's complaint is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman