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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X said the unauthorised boundary dressing is very imposing and detracts from the value of his property. He would like the Council to require retrospective planning permission for the boundary dressing, and for it to be removed.
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We 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.
I considered 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 considered Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach of planning control. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take formal enforcement action as it said the development did not cause unacceptable harm.
The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not need to take enforcement action and councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman