Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to his planning enforcement query. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, reported a potential change of use and breach of planning conditions to the Council. Mr B complains the Council has not taken any enforcement action and says this has a cost implication to the management and maintenance of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and correspondence between Mr B and the Council. I sent a draft decision to Mr B’s representative to invite comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B complains a car park that was constructed for residential use for the occupiers of flats is being accessed by an unauthorised rear entrance by a neighbouring business for commercial use. Mr B wants the Council to take enforcement action against the business for an unauthorised change of use of the car park and breaches of the planning permission that was granted in the 1990s.
6. The Council has investigated the alleged breach and told Mr B it does not consider the commercial use of the parking area Mr B complains about amounts to a material change of use in land-use planning terms, nor does it consider the use of it is contrary to planning conditions. The Council has told Mr B it considers this is a civil matter.
7. While Mr B disagrees with this decision, the Ombudsman can only criticise the Council if its decision is made with fault. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if there has been any breach of planning control, or whether the Council should take any enforcement action. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault because the Council has considered Mr B’s complaint, the planning permission granted in the 1990s, the conditions attached to that planning permission, the current use of the car park and whether there is any planning breach. The Council has explained to Mr B the reasons why it will not take enforcement action. That is a professional judgement officers are able to make and there are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the way the Council has made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decisions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman