Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in taking enforcement action against a developer who breached planning approval for a nearby development. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the action which the Council has taken since 2019. We will not investigate earlier issues which relate to matters outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council failing to take prompt action over planning breaches at a nearby development.

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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council about a nearby development which he said did not conform to the approved plans in January 2018. The Council served an enforcement notice and the developer submitted a retrospective application in July which was conditionally approved in September.
6. Mr X continued to complain about failure to meet the planning conditions and about a highway drain which was different to the plans. Mr X complained to us in December 2019. We will not exercise discretion to consider the issues which he was aware of 12-months before he complained because they are outside our jurisdiction. The Council’s enforcement notice resulted in a retrospective application which was a reasonable remedy to the issues.
7. Mr X complained to us in 2019 about the drain which he said remained unaddressed. He did not provide evidence of how this caused him any personal injustice. The Council discussed the drainage with the highway authority which had no objections to the completed development. It decided to require a retrospective application for the works which was received in February 2020. The application was approved in March 2020 and the enforcement case closed.
8. The timescale for resolving the drain issue was not unreasonable and planning enforcement is a discretionary power for a local planning authority. There is insufficient evidence that Mr X has suffered any significant injustice arising from the breaches of planning approval or the time taken to complete the enforcement procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the action which the Council has taken since 2019. We will not investigate earlier issues which relate to matters outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman