Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against a neighbour.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for alterations to the front of their property and additional tarmacking to the driveway. The Council refused the planning application and Mr X asked the Council to take planning enforcement action.
6. The Planning Officer’s report which resulted in the refusal of the retrospective planning application stated that there is no significant impact on neighbouring properties form the planning application. The decision was based upon a negative impact on the conservation area.
7. The Council decided to enforce the planning decision by requiring the applicant to install a hedge to reduce the impact of the work on the conservation area.
8. A further complaint was made that the neighbour was selling cars from the property. The Council investigated and, following a site visit, concluded that there was no evidence to support this allegation.
9. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
10. Planning 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 or use.
11. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
12. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 59)
13. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered what enforcement to take in this case. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman could not question the merits of the Council’s decision.
14. 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 an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
15. Whilst I appreciate the complainant’s concern about the impact on the conservation area, I am not satisfied that the injustice caused to him is not sufficient, in any event, to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman