Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. He says the Council has failed to take action against his neighbour in relation to the unauthorised development and it has incorrectly interpreted permitted development rights. Mr X says he has been lied to and disciplinary action should be taken against the officers involved.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, the Council considered Mr X’s concerns about the materials his neighbour used for the development and agreed the work was not permitted development. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient or in the public interest to take enforcement action.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees, but I am satisfied the Council has properly explained why it would not be expedient to take further action. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. Council’s also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Furthermore, the breach has since been regularised as Mr X’s neighbour submitted an application to the Council for additional work at the property and the unauthorised work was included as part of the application. The Council considered the acceptability of the development, including Mr X’s concerns about the materials used, before granting planning permission.
10. Mr X has raised concerns about the impact the development will have on the party wall and says his neighbour has not used the Council’s building control service to inspect the building work. But matters relating to the party wall will be a private civil matter between the relevant parties. There is also no requirement for applicants to use the Council’s building control service and can instead use a registered building control approver.
11. Mr X says the case officers should be disciplined. But it is not for the Ombudsman to get involved with employment matters and therefore an investigation could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely we could achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman