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 the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour. He says there have been delays and the Council failed to keep him updated. Mr X says the unauthorised development impacts his privacy.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr 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, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and agreed the development was unauthorised. However, the Council decided that while a technical breach had occurred, it was not significant enough to justify enforcement action and removing the decking would not be in the public interest.
I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide not to take enforcement action.
Mr X has complained about how long it took the Council to look into his concerns and says it did not keep him up to date. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of the delays and lack of updates as the Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman