Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to take planning enforcement action against an outbuilding at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against an outbuilding built by his neighbour without planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can 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, which included the Council’s complaint response.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the outbuilding erected by his neighbour.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. With planning enforcement, councils can take action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, they should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary, and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate and expedient response to the breach. As such, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all.
9. Here, the Council has explained to Mr X the outbuilding is immune from planning enforcement action, because the time-limit for taking action has expired. It has also explained that even if the building was not immune from enforcement action, it was likely planning permission would be granted if a planning application was submitted, due to the minor exceedance of permitted development rights. As such, it decided it would not have been expedient to pursue further action. This is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision on this planning enforcement case, so we will not start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning enforcement case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman