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. Mr X says the unauthorised development impacts his property and the area and the Council should take enforcement action against his neighbour.
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))
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 although it did not know the exact pitch of the original roof, it accepted that it had likely changed. However, the Council decided not to take enforcement action as it considered the breach de-minimis and said the development as built was acceptable in planning terms.
Mr X says he has been given conflicting information from the Council’s enforcement officers about the changes to the roof. The Council has accepted some of the advice given to Mr X has been contradictory and has apologised. It says lessons have been learnt for the future about having a single point of contact and ensuring enquires are directed to the lead officer dealing with the case to respond to. However, I cannot say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of the conflicting advice he received as regardless of the exact measurements, the Council decided the development built was acceptable in planning terms.
I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide if enforcement action was necessary. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
Mr X says the Council should reimburse the costs he has incurred seeking professional advice from a planning consultant and solicitor. But it was Mr X’s decision to seek advice and I cannot say the Council would be responsible for the costs.
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