The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with reports about a suspected breach of planning control. Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper procedures when investigating the alleged breach and there was a delay before it told him it would not take formal enforcement action. Mr X says he has been caused considerable distress by the Council’s actions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has carried out development without the required permission.
When there is a suspected breach of planning control, the Council should carry out a proportionate investigation to decide if there has been a breach and if formal action is needed.
In this case, the Council was contacted and told new patio doors had been inserted in Mr X’s extension without permission. In response to the allegation, the Council says it examined the planning application for the extension and the approved plans showed the development did not include any doors. The planning permission was also subject to a condition which said new doors could not be built without the Council’s consent. As the enforcement officer considered there had been a planning breach, they wrote to Mr X and requested he remove the doors.
Mr X responded to the Council and provided evidence to show the patio doors had not been inserted in the most recently approved extension and had been in place for many years. The Council considered the evidence and closed its enforcement case as it agreed there had been no breach of planning control.
Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper procedures when investigating the alleged breach. He says the Council could have easily established the patio doors were lawful before writing to him and requesting he remove the doors. He also says there was a delay before the Council told him the enforcement case would be closed. However, even if I were to say the Council was at fault in this regard, I could not say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as the Council ultimately decided formal action was not warranted. It also advised Mr X its enforcement case was closed a few weeks after receiving his additional information.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman