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. The complainant has not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays.
The complaint
Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. Ms X says there were delays and the breach impacts the character of the building and area.
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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(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 Ms 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 looked into Ms X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site. The Council agreed there had been a breach as the development did not comply with the approved plans. However, the Council decided it would not be expedient to take formal action as it said the breach was minor and caused limited harm.
I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and says it undermines the original planning decision. But councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach and the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not need to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Ms X has complained about how long it took the Council to look into her concerns about the breach. But I do not consider she has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays with the Council’s enforcement investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman