• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over breaches of planning regulations at a neighbouring development since 2013. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than the normal 12 months period for submitting complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to take action over breaches of planning approval for a development near his home. He says the Council was aware of breaches in the layout and use of the property as long ago as 2013. He says it cost him over £18,000 in legal costs to pursue action to have the development used correctly and the Council’s delay cost him a substantial amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the development next to his home was approved in 2010 and the development occupied in 2013. The approval was for 9 luxury flats, but Mr X says he soon became aware that 36 smaller flats had been built. Over the next few years Mr X and the Council sought to resolve the breaches of planning regulations.
5. The Council served a planning contravention notice in 2014 and an enforcement notice 2015. Planning enforcement is a discretionary procedure and government guidance recommends that planning authorities seek to regularise the development before seeking action in the courts. The develop appealed the notices and submitted new plans which were refused and appealed. The procedure has taken several years but the developer scaled down the occupation and agreed to vacate and sell the development by 2020.
6. Mr X has incurred significant legal costs in fighting the development which he feels the Council should compensate him for. The Council says it took action years ago and that the case is complex and was subject to statutory appeals process several times which was in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate.
7. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints about matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before complaining to us. Mr X was clearly aware of the breaches several years ago and raised this with the Council which took action. We would not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint now.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than the normal 12 months period for submitting complaints.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page