Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about planning enforcement. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not take enforcement action against planning breaches at his neighbour’s property. He also complains about poor communication and complaint handling.

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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s neighbour installed an open‑air swimming pool in their garden. They also built a garage, for which they obtained planning permission.
7. Mr X says the swimming pool caused a loss of privacy. He also says that, if the pool is included, the total area of ground covered by structures, other than the house, exceeds 50%, meaning the pool should not be permitted development.
8. The Council explained the swimming pool is not a structure for the purposes of assessing ground coverage. This is correct for an open‑air pool, and I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that the swimming pool fell under permitted development.
9. Mr X also says the garage was not built in line with the approved plans.
10. 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 a 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. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
11. 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.
12. The Council accepts the garage was not built according to the plans, so a technical breach occurred. However, it decided the breach did not result in material planning harm and that it was not expedient to take enforcement action.
13. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. However, the Council was entitled to reach this decision using its professional judgement. As it properly considered whether enforcement action was necessary, there is insufficient evidence of fault in its process to justify further investigation.
14. We will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman