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.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mr X’s concerns. An enforcement officer visited the site and the Council’s heritage officer was consulted. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action and the development did not cause harm to the setting of the listed building or the character of the area.
7. Mr X says the Council initially told him a retrospective application was needed for the unauthorised development and a deadline was given to the site owner to apply for planning permission. Mr X says enforcement action should have been taken when an application was not received. However, Council’s do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control and the Council has explained why it did not consider it expedient to take enforcement action.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his freedom of information request. However, Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is concerned about how the Council dealt with his information request as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

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