Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to tell the complainant about a planning appeal, and the decision not to take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, says the Council:
• failed to tell residents that an appeal was made against a refused application in 2017
• failed to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control
• failed to call him back after promising to do so; and
• ignored his complaints

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr J and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr J says the Council failed to tell him a developer has appealed against its refusal of a planning application in 2017. He says this prevented him from making the Planning Inspector aware of his views.
6. The Council says its records show it sent letters telling residents including Mr J about the appeal in November 2017. Mr J disputes this and says he did not receive the Council’s letter. Because of this he says he lost the opportunity to take part in the appeal or present his comments to the Planning Inspector
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. I cannot know why Mr J did not receive the Council’s letter. However, in response to the complaint, the Council says its records show it sent the letters. The Council is not required to provide proof of postage. I consider that further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr J complains the Council failed to act on his report of a breach of a condition on the planning permission. He says work on the development started after the planning permission expired.
10. The Council confirms the developer cleared the site and worked on foundations three days before the permission expired. This is enough work to commence the development and keep the planning permission ‘alive’.
11. I am satisfied the Council followed its published planning enforcement procedures before advising Mr J the work commenced before the application expired. Commencing development means carrying out some limited works on site to commence a planning permission and thus keep it alive. The works must be done within the time expressed on the permission. In practice minor work is sufficient to commence a planning permission.
12. Mr J also complains about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman