Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr Q’s complaint about it failing to properly investigate his reports of a neighbour using residential premises for agricultural and commercial purposes in breach of planning control. The Council failed to show what it did to investigate his reports for a period of 3 months. The fault caused Mr Q no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Q complains the Council failed to:
1. promptly and properly investigate his reports of a neighbour using residential premises for agricultural and business purposes without planning consent;
2. act on reports of the neighbour using a building on site for non-approved purposes;
3. consider the evidence he sent of the breach;
4. respond properly, or at all, to his queries about its investigation; and
5. explain its reasons for concluding there was no breach of planning consent.
2. As a result, his amenities are affected as he is regularly disturbed by noise and light pollution from the neighbour’s activities.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have not investigated any complaint Mr Q may have against the Council that we investigated on his previous complaint (18 000 683).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered all the information Mr Q sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the comments received from the Council to my enquiries on his complaint, a copy of which I sent him. I did not send all the information received. This is because some of it needs to remain confidential as it included information about third parties. I sent a copy of my initial draft decision to Mr Q and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr Q has lived in his house in the countryside for many years. Next to it is the site about which he complains. Mr Q disputes the site owner’s use of the whole site for agricultural and commercial purposes. He believes the site has a residential, not commercial use. He is unhappy with the neighbour’s decision to relocate his agricultural commercial business from a site 10 miles away on to the whole of this site. The neighbouring site now contains tractors, JCB’s, and a dumper truck, for example. These impact on his amenities.
8. He believes the neighbour using the site this way breaches planning control as he does not have planning consent. Mr Q is unhappy with the Council’s delayed response to his reports about these breaches and says officers failed to visit the site during their investigation. As a result of the failure to enforce planning control, the site’s activities regularly disturb him. He wants all business and non-residential activities to stop. He also wants the neighbour to remove all non-residential equipment and machinery from the site.

Complaint a), b), and c): reports of using residential premises/unauthorised use of new building and consideration of evidence

9. Mr Q complains the Council took 3 months to act on his reports about the unauthorised use of the site. Nor is he happy with how it considered his evidence of breaches.
10. He made his first report in November 2018 about the owner carrying out business activities and storage on his residential premises and using an agricultural building for non-approved purposes.
11. The Council replied the same month saying it would take several months to investigate these reports as officers needed to carry out site visits.
12. Mr Q is unhappy it took the Council until May 2019 to decide it would take no action against the neighbour and close the case.

Analysis

13. The evidence shows Mr Q made several reports to the Council about breaches of planning control by his neighbour in November 2018. The report included claims of the neighbour storing industrial machinery and equipment on site, which he used to carry out agricultural contract work.
14. The Council acknowledged these reports and explained it would take several months to investigate. One of the reasons given was the need for officers to carry out site visits during its investigation.
15. I am satisfied the Council managed Mr Q’s initial expectations by giving him a realistic time frame within which it would complete its investigation. During this period, which would include Christmas and New Year, the Council had to take steps to investigate whether there was evidence of a breach of planning control.
16. In January 2019, Mr Q chased the Council about progress and referred to several questions he had also asked. The Council replied the same month noting it could not answer all of them until it completed its investigation.
17. In February, the Council served the neighbour with a Planning Contravention Notice (the Notice). This is served when a council wants detailed information about suspected breaches of planning control. It is served when it appears a breach of planning control may have taken place.
18. The Notice was to do with possible breaches of planning control on the neighbour’s site. These included the possible change of use of land from agricultural and residential use to mixed storage, agricultural, residential, and commercial uses. In addition, it included the possible change of use of buildings on the land from agricultural and residential use to mixed storage, agricultural, residential, and commercial use. The neighbour provided his response to the Notice the following month.
19. There is no evidence showing what action the Council took to Mr Q’s reports it received in November 2018 up to February 2019 when it served the Notice. There is no evidence of site visits during this period, for example. I consider the Council failed to show what action it took during this period. This amounts to fault.
20. Officers visited the site several times in May, evidence of some of which I have seen. I have also seen evidence of the Council contacting the neighbour about moving the garden items left on agricultural land. The neighbour replied saying he had already moved them.
21. The same month, the Council sent Mr Q a letter saying it had thoroughly investigated his concerns about the site. This explained as machinery and equipment on site is mainly used for agricultural purposes, its storage does not amount to a material change of use of the building or the land. It was not unusual for agricultural equipment and machinery to be repaired in agricultural buildings or on the land or for agricultural workers to borrow equipment and machinery from each other. Planning consent for the general-purpose agricultural building was not subject to conditions restricting its use to animal accommodation.
22. While Mr Q’s photographs showed residential items (garden furniture and children’s play equipment, for example) on agricultural land, the Council considered these were not permanent structures. This is because they were not fixed to the ground. As such, it would not take enforcement action because of this and their small scale. It accepted it was better to have these items removed back on to residential land. The Council closed its case on Mr Q’s reports.
23. Officers visited the site in July and found no breach of planning control.
24. I am satisfied the Council considered Mr Q’s evidence when it investigated his report.
25. I am not satisfied the identified fault on this complaint caused Mr Q a significant injustice. This is because while there is no evidence showing what the Council did before issuing the Notice, I am satisfied that even if there had been some delay, the eventual outcome of its investigation was not to take enforcement action against the neighbour. Put simply, the outcome of its investigation would not have differed but for any delay.

Complaint d): Council responses

26. Mr Q is also unhappy with the Council’s responses to the concerns he raised. He believes the responses should have specifically explained how the evidence he sent was considered. He complains about constantly chasing the Council for responses and answers. When he received a response, he says they were evasive and defensive.

Analysis

27. I found no fault on this complaint. I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council responded to the reports raised, gave reasons for decisions it communicated, and was not defensive or evasive. In addition to the points I have already made, I also took account of the following:
1. In early November 2018, Mr Q raised concerns with the Council. The Council acknowledged this and invited him to send evidence he wanted it to consider. The Council told him about the likely timescale of any investigation. He was told it was likely to take ‘several months’.
2. In February 2019, the Council told him it was still investigating his claims after he chased it about progress. It said it understood his frustration but, would try to keep him informed at key stages of its investigation.
3. The same month, it also responded to some of his queries. The email said he may need to consider getting independent planning advice. The Council would not be responding to further questions until its investigation of his reports was concluded. Mr Q sent the Council further questions.
4. In April, Mr Q again emailed the Council wanting to know the outcome of the investigation of his reports. The Council responded telling him it served a Notice on his neighbour and its investigation was now complete. Officers were writing up their findings and the Council would send him the outcome. The Chief Executive intended to visit the site in early May.
5. The Council’s email to Mr Q of 3 May 2019 responded to further questions he had asked in response to the Council’s previous response to his queries. It set out the various emails he had sent it was responding to as well. These covered emails he sent on 6 February, 16 February, 15 April, and 30 April.

Complaint e): no breach decision

28. Mr Q is unhappy with the Council deciding there is no breach of planning control because it failed to give reasons in support.

Analysis

29. I found no fault on this complaint. I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council explained why it either found no breach of planning control or, where there was a breach, why it would not pursue enforcement action.

Final decision

30. The Ombudsman found some fault on Mr Q’s complaint against the Council. This caused no injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I did not investigate any complaint Mr Q had that we previously investigated (18 000 683: decided in August 2018). For the avoidance of doubt, this included:

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman