Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement investigation as there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with her planning application as it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of a reported breach of planning control at her property. She also complains about the Council’s handling of her planning application to regularise the breach and about the way it dealt with her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, 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)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council visited Mrs X’s property in 2019 to investigate a reported breach of planning control. Mrs X was not home so the Council says it left a card asking her to contact them. A week passed and Mrs X did not contact the Council so it sent her a letter explaining it needed to arrange access. Mrs X called in response to the letter and explained she believed what she had built was ‘permitted development’ and did not need planning permission. The Council’s planning enforcement officer explained they would have to visit to measure but Mrs X said she would not allow them onto her property. Mrs X complained about the conduct of the planning enforcement officer and the Council arranged for a visit by a different officer. The officer reported back to the Council and the Council confirmed that what Mrs X had built was not ‘permitted development’; it therefore required planning permission. The Council wrote to Mrs X with its conclusion and invited her to submit a retrospective planning application to ‘regularise’ the development.
7. While Mrs X complains about threatening letters and harassment by the planning enforcement officer there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation. The law required it to investigate the reported breach of planning control and once it established the development required planning permission it wrote to Mrs X to explain her options. While Mrs X found this confrontational it is her word against the officer’s and it is unlikely we could say the Council was wrong to pursue the matter in the way it did.
8. Mrs X applied for planning permission for the development but says the Council delayed in dealing with her application. She confirms in her complaint that the Council had demanded information during the initial government lockdown between March and June 2020 and that it arranged meetings over this period.
9. The law requires councils to decide applications for ‘minor development’ such as Mrs X’s within eight weeks. It is unlikely we could attribute any delay in the planning process entirely to fault by the Council and the law provides a right of appeal on this point which we consider it would be reasonable for applicants to use.
10. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s handling of the planning enforcement matter and because Mrs X had a right of appeal for any delay in the application process which it would have been reasonable for her to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman