The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take enforcement action against an outbuilding and then granting retrospective planning permission for it. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the enforcement case or the application.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council should have taken enforcement action during the earlier stages of the erection of an outbuilding to the rear of her property and should not have subsequently granted retrospective planning permission.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) In that regard, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If there is evidence of fault in the process, we consider whether this is likely to have affected the outcome.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included its complaint responses and the delegated report on the planning application.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Ms X is unhappy the Council did not take enforcement action against the outbuilding and granted retrospective planning permission instead. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against those decisions. Rather, our role is to review the process by which those decisions were made, and to consider if any fault in the process is likely to have influenced the outcome.
I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the enforcement case or the planning application to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that: Councils have discretion to take enforcement action to remedy a breach of planning control, but they are under no obligation to do so. In each case, councils have the discretion to decide whether further action is expedient. Government guidance is that councils should act proportionately when considering the expediency of taking enforcement action. There is no expectation councils should automatically enforce against every planning breach.
There was no requirement for the Council to visit Ms X’s property when determining the retrospective planning application.
The delegated report summarises the objections to the outbuilding and goes on to provide an assessment of its impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the impact was acceptable, even if Ms X disagrees with its decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman