Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with 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 breaches of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X says the Council has avoided taking responsibility for enforcing the planning conditions and has allowed work at the site to continue. Mr X says he has been caused stress by the matter and lost faith in the Council.

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, outline permission was granted following an appeal to the Planning Inspector for a residential development near Mr X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions, many of which needed to be complied with before the development could commence.
8. Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned unauthorised development was taking place at the site. In response to Mr X’s concerns, officers carried out site visits and met with the developer. It also clarified the work being carried out and any mitigation measures being implemented to reduce the impact. The Council agreed planning conditions were being breached. However, it decided it would not be expedient to take formal enforcement action. The Council said it considered if permission would likely be granted for the unauthorised work and if the relevant conditions will be discharged. It said based on the information it has already received in relation to the pre-commencement conditions, including the responses from the relevant consultees, it is likely the conditions will be discharged.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it would not be expedient to take enforcement action and I am satisfied it has explained why formal action is not necessary. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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