Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained the Council has not taken enforcement action against her neighbour for a breach of planning control. Mrs X says the Council’s responses to her concerns have been inconsistent. She says the unauthorised development has a significant impact on her property and the matter has impacted her family’s quality of life and health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against planning enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. In this case, the Council agreed the outbuilding built by Mrs X’s neighbour was too large to be permitted development. Therefore, the Council invited Mrs X’s neighbour to make a retrospective planning application. An application was received but this has not been validated as sufficient information was not provided. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action as the single storey outbuilding is only slightly higher than what is allowed using permitted development rights and it will have a minimal impact on amenity. The Council also said the height and size is similar to other outbuildings in the area.
9. I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the Council does not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. I am satisfied it has properly considered if formal action is necessary and explained why it does not consider it expedient to take enforcement action. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if formal enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman