Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control where she lives. We will not investigate this complaint. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decision. Nor do we consider Mrs X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near her home. She also says it has failed to follow its complaints policy.
2. She wants someone held accountable for allowing her neighbour to convert a listed outbuilding into a garage without planning permission or listed building consent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mrs X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Local Authorities hold lists of buildings considered by English Heritage to have some special architectural or historic value. Before carrying out any work on a listed building, it is necessary to apply for Listed Building Consent. Consent is still necessary even if the work would be permitted development if carried out on a non-listed building. Where planning permission is required, the developer must submit separate applications, a full or outline planning application and a Listed Building Consent application.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council in August 2020, that a neighbour had converted a listed outbuilding into a modern building without permission. She says this must have happened in 2015.
8. The Council did not immediately open an enforcement investigation, apparently due to the number of reports of breaches of planning control it had received.
9. Mrs X complained in November. The Council began an enforcement investigation.
10. The Council visited the property. An officer compared photographs taken on the site in 2015, with the present development. It agrees there is a breach of planning control on the site. However, it has decided the only proportionate response would be to convert the building in question back to a red brick outbuilding. And that it is not expedient to take action to enforce this.

Assessment

11. Mrs X believes the breach of planning control would have been obvious to the Council when it visited the site during an earlier planning application in 2015. She is also concerned about the Council’s record keeping.
12. We cannot criticise the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control when there is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process.
13. 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.
14. The Council has visited the site and has decided that while there is a breach of planning control on the site, it is not expedient to take action. Having considered the matter, this is a decision it is entitled to make.
15. Mrs X says the unauthorised work is harmful to wildlife and sets a precedent for development on the site. During our conversation, she confirmed she cannot see the site from her home, and it has no direct impact on her.
16. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.

17. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
18. Turning to Mrs X’s concerns about the complaint procedure. We expect councils to follow their published complaints procedures. However, we will not usually look at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint. I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action against the breach of planning control. Also, I do not consider that Ms X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman