Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and its decision not to take enforcement action. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his objections to a planning application. He also complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action after he said the applicant breached planning rules. He said the Council’s decision has impacted on his wellbeing.

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the planning documents on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider the impact on him when deciding to grant planning permission on an application.
8. Mr X then complained to the Council once the building works were completed. He said the works were larger than the agreed plans and this meant the impact was greater.
9. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns. It took measurements of the development and decided it would not take enforcement action. It explained its reasons to Mr X.
10. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision. He said he believed the Council’s measurements were incorrect and estimated the works were larger than the Council had found.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to properly consider the impact on him when it granted planning permission. The planning officer’s report shows the Council considered Mr X’s concerns when making its decision.
12. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with the Council’s assessment of how much the development would affect him, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome of a council’s decision, provided the council has acted without fault when making that decision.
13. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning rules.
14. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, planning enforcement is discretionary, and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach.
15. In Mr X’s case, the Council investigated the alleged breach by completing site visits. It measured the works and found the development was 5cm larger than agreed. However, it decided it was not proportionate for it to take enforcement action against this. This is a decision it was entitled to make.
16. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns or how it made its decision to not take enforcement action to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman