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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about a development near his home and how the Council has dealt with possible breaches of planning control.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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 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 or not complied with planning conditions. 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.
7. In this case, the Council approved an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development to build an outbuilding at the site some years ago and permission has since been granted on appeal to the Planning Inspector to change the use of the building so it can be used as a separate residential dwelling.
8. Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned the development was not built in line with the approved plans. The Council decided there had not been a breach as it said the outbuilding would still be permitted development as long as it met the necessary requirements. The Council also looked into Mr X’s concerns that the planning conditions were being breached. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns before deciding there had not been a breach of planning control as the conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector had been complied with. It also said other conditions for the site were not implemented by the Inspector when they allowed the appeal to change the use of the outbuilding.
9. Mr X says the Council has not monitored the works at the site as they proceeded and the development that now exists resembles the previous proposals that were refused. But there is no requirement for councils to monitor a site to ensure compliance after an application is approved. I am also satisfied the Council has looked into the possible breaches when Mr X has reported these.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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