The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take further planning enforcement action against a CCTV camera erected on a pole at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
The complaint
Mr X complaint about the Council deciding not to pursue planning enforcement action against a CCTV camera erected on a pole at a neighbouring property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can 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. So, we do not start 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council has decided it will not pursue further enforcement action against the CCTV camera erected by his neighbour.
But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision reached.
I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its final decision not to pursue further planning enforcement action, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that: Planning enforcement is discretionary. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. So, Council’s may decide to take informal action (like negotiating improvements, or seeking an assurance/undertaking) or they may decide not to act at all.
The Council has considered the concerns Mr X raised, particularly in relation to privacy, and persuaded the neighbour to reduce the height of the camera and reposition it further away from Mr X’s property. The Council was entitled to then reach the professional judgement, having conducted a site visit, that it was not expedient to pursue any further action.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to pursue further planning enforcement action.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman