Caradon District Council (05B12538)

Planning enforcement               Maladministration, but no injustice

26 June 2006

‘Mrs Wren’ (not her real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council did not pursue enforcement action to remove her neighbour’s substantial shed following a planning inspector’s decision that it should be removed, and later alleged that the Council had secretly agreed with her neighbour that the shed should stay.

The Ombudsman’s investigation showed that the Council’s first decision regarding the shed was to refuse an application for Lawful Use and Development. The decision notice contained an informative note that was poorly worded and misconceived. It could be construed as indicating a subsequent planning application to retain the shed would be approved, but Council officers deny this intention. The informative note did not alter the action taken by the Council.

The Council began enforcement action to remove the shed. It then acted appropriately in not taking steps to carry this out promptly because an application to relocate the shed was made and a subsequent relevant planning appeal by Mrs Wren’s neighbour was to be decided. The Council then decided it was not expedient to enforce the removal of the shed. The investigation showed that this decision was made with appropriate consideration of the facts and permitted development legislation.

The Ombudsman found, therefore, that there was some maladministration by the Council, but that it did not cause injustice to Mrs Wren. He finds no evidence of any secret agreement between the Council and her neighbour.

Date Updated: 16/01/09