Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with possible breaches of planning control. Mr X says the Council failed to properly investigate the breaches and some of his concerns were ignored. Mr X says the Council’s enforcement decision was not properly explained and the service provided by the Council’s planning department was inconsistent, biased, and unhelpful.

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 Mr X and 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. 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, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mr X’s concerns about possible planning breaches. An officer visited the site and contacted the site owner. However, the Council decided not to take enforcement action. It said some of the breaches complained about were immune from enforcement action due to the length of time that had passed. It also decided other issues raised by Mr X, including concerns about the use of the property and outbuildings, did not amount to a planning breach. Although the Council initially said the cladding on the property was immune from formal action, it later accepted there had been a breach in this regard. However, it decided the harm caused would not be significant enough to justify formal enforcement action.
8. Mr X disagrees and says the site owner should make a retrospective planning application for the unauthorised development and the Council previously said this would be required. Although councils often invite a developer to apply for planning permission to regularise a development, there is no requirement for it to do so. The Council has explained why it does not consider the cladding causes significant harm. It was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard and councils do not have to take formal action just because there has been a planning breach.
9. Mr X says the Council did not wait for additional information before visiting the site and closing the enforcement case. However, the case officer was entitled to decide they had sufficient information to carry out the site visit and the Council has explained how the officer was able to reach a decision without waiting for additional information from Mr X. I am also satisfied the Council did consider the further information once it was received.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and he has questioned its judgement. But the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman