Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to protect his home which is a listed building. He says it has refused to take enforcement action against his neighbour’s breach of planning control which Mr X says has increased the risk of flooding 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 carried out 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 effective 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. Mr X told the Council his neighbour had altered the topography of their land which has caused a flood in 2023 and has increased the risk of further flooding.
8. The Council confirms it visited Mr X’s home and the neighbour’s property. It also asked the neighbours to provide an engineer’s report.
9. Having considered the engineer’s report and visited the site, the Council told Mr X that from the information it has seen it did not consider the unauthorised development causes demonstrable harm. Because of this it says if the neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application it would likely grant planning permission. Therefore the Council says it is not expedient to take enforcement action against the neighbour.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council. But having followed the process we expect to see on receipt of a report of planning control there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
11. Mr X says because the Council will not require his neighbour to return their land to its original form, it is failing in its duty to protect his listed home.
12. However the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not need to take enforcement action. Councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman