Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take planning enforcement action against breaches of planning control on land next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on the planning enforcement matters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against various commercial uses which have operated on land next to her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. In relation to the first bullet point above, we can 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 Mrs X.
• information on the Council’s planning portal about the site.
• the Council’s Planning Enforcement Plan.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council did not take formal enforcement action against the various commercial uses which operated on land next to her home.
6. But the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against Council decisions on planning enforcement cases. Rather, we look at whether there was fault in the way it made its decisions. If we decide there is not enough evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot question whether it should have reached a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
7. In relation to planning enforcement, Councils can take formal action where there is a breach of planning control and if they consider it expedient to do so. But as planning enforcement is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action (for example, requesting the submission of a planning application) or not to act at all.
8. In this case, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning enforcement issues at the site to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that the Council considered the information Mrs X submitted about the changing uses at the site, it conducted site visits, sought to liaise with the owners and occupiers of the land, and invited the submission of planning applications. When these were not forthcoming, the Council was entitled to decide it was not expedient to pursue further, formal enforcement action, even if Mrs X disagrees with that judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decisions on the planning enforcement issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman