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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for a breach of planning control. Mr X says the Council has misinterpreted planning law and the screening erected by his neighbour is an eyesore.

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 Mr X and 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 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.
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. After Mr X reported the suspected planning breach to the Council it contacted his neighbour and parts of the screening were removed. The Council says it has no grounds on which to take action in relation to the remaining screening as this does not constitute development and therefore does not require planning permission.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees, but it is for the Council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and it has explained why it decided there was not a breach in this case. This was a decision it was entitled to make, and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered if there had been a breach of planning control, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman