The Ombudsman's final decision
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 with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response in relation to the service issues raised by the complainant.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against her neighbour for a breach of planning control. Miss X says the unauthorised development does not comply with the Council’s planning policy and has a significant impact on her property.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
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.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action. An officer visited the site in response to Miss X’s concerns but decided enforcement action was not necessary as the development, as built, was acceptable and retrospective planning permission would be given if an application was made.
Miss X says the new window does not comply with the Council’s planning guidance as it faces directly into the main room of her home. However, the Council has explained why it does not consider Miss X’s kitchen a main room. It has also explained why the development would still be acceptable if it were to consider the kitchen as a main room.
I understand Miss X disagrees and says the unauthorised window should be removed. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide enforcement action was not necessary. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Miss X also says the Council failed to properly communicate with her. She says it did not respond to her calls and refused to answer her questions. However, the Council has already apologised for the service it provided to Miss X. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this response or achieve any more for Miss X.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response in relation to the service issues raised by Miss X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman