Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement investigation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action about a change to his neighbour’s property, which dominates the view from his house. Mr B says the Council took too long to investigate the matter and has not re-opened the case even though the development has not been removed.

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 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 B and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
7. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach.
8. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
9. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council has set out the actions it took in response to Mr B reporting the development at his neighbour’s property.
10. Planning enforcement can be a lengthy process and the information does not suggest there was excessive delay by the Council. The Council has apologised to Mr B for not keeping him updated. This was a suitable response.
11. The Council decided to close the enforcement investigation after taking the view that if a planning application were to be submitted, the Council would consider the development to be acceptable in principle.
12. I have not seen any information to suggest this decision was affected by fault. The decision whether to take planning enforcement action is discretionary. The likelihood of planning permission being granted for this development was a relevant factor for the Council to consider when making the decision to close the case. So, we cannot say the Council was right or wrong to decide enforcement action was not justified.
13. Mr B says after the Council closed the case he contacted the Council to say the development had not been removed. Mr B complains the Council has refused to re-open the case. Mr B says the Council should re-open the case because one of the Council’s reasons for closing the case was because the property owner said they would remove the development.
14. But, the Council says it was after the planning department had closed the case that the property owner said they would remove the development. The information does not suggest the property owner’s comments were a reason for the Council ending its investigation. So, the Council would not be at fault for refusing to re-open the case.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman