The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pursue planning enforcement at a development site. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to discontinue planning enforcement against an unauthorised development at a property on his street. He says the Council’s decision is inconsistent with it taking enforcement action against him when he undertook similar development at a relative’s property in another area in 2014.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about: delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission a decision to refuse planning permission conditions placed on planning permission a planning enforcement notice.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a property owner on his street who constructed an extension without permission. He says when he undertook similar building works at a relative’s house in another location the Council served an enforcement notice and threatened a court prosecution, forcing him to remove the works. He believes the Council has been unnecessarily lenient and inconsistent in its latest decision.
The Council told Mr X that the two sites and developments are not directly comparable and it has to consider each case on its merits. Planning Enforcement is a discretionary power and a council has to decide whether or not it is expedient to take action based on the public harm which a development may cause.
We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the decision was taken on the basis of effects on the amenity of any neighbouring properties.
We will not exercise discretion to consider the decision on Mr X’s own development in 2014. This took place outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. He could have appealed both the decision to refuse a retrospective application he submitted and the planning enforcement notice to the Planning Inspectorate which is the proper body to consider these matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pursue planning enforcement at a development site. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman