Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action against a development which was built contrary to the approved plans. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not take planning enforcement action when a development was not built in accordance with the approved plans, and instead invited the submission of a retrospective application.

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
• 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. 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 the complainant and the Council.
• information about the original and retrospective planning applications, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy the Council did not take planning enforcement action against the unauthorised works, and instead invited a retrospective application.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with this planning enforcement issue, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• councils can take action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, they should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development.
• Miss X reported her concerns to the Council in early-October 2025 and it had conducted a site visit by late-October.
• the Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the matter could be dealt with via a retrospective planning application, and this was submitted shortly after.
• Miss X was able to object to the application.
• a detailed Committee report considers the impact of the amendments on Miss X’s amenity. Again, the Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the changes were acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled this planning enforcement matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman