Summary: Mrs X says the Council did not take timely enforcement action against a breach of planning control. I propose to close this complaint because the injustice caused to Mrs X is not so great that the Ombudsman is likely to recommend a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council did not take timely enforcement action against a breach of planning control at a development close to her home.
2. Mrs X says people were living in the houses when they should not have been. She says she and her mother’s carers had to walk in the narrow road to go to her mother’s house because the unmade pavement was a trip hazard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I examined the complaint and background information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I considered the details of the planning application on the Council’s website. I enquired into the location of the development through Google street search. I sent a draft decision statement to Mrs X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council granted planning permission for a development of five houses close to Mrs X’s home in 2016. Condition 4 of the planning permission required the developer to ensure a new roadside public footpath was fully implemented before any of the houses were occupied. Condition 5 required the developer to provide certain details relating to vehicular access to the public highway before the development commenced.
7. Mrs X says she contacted the Council about possible breaches of these conditions in January 2020. She says had to chase matters with the Council before it identified a breach of planning control and the breach was rectified in December 2020.
8. The Council says Mrs X made a planning enforcement complaint in March 2020. It says the lockdown caused by the Covid19 pandemic meant it temporarily ceased planning enforcement investigations. It restarted the service in the summer of 2020.
9. The Council said there was no breach of condition 5 as the developer had submitted the required details and the Council had agreed with the proposals in 2018.
10. The Council established a breach of condition 4. It said the final footpath surface had not been finished before a house was occupied. It said there was a manhole cover protruding by an inch above the existing floor surface level.
11. It made contact with the developer around October 2020. The developer gave assurances that the footpath would be completed. However, the Council served a breach of condition notice before the developer completed the works in December 2020.

Finding

12. I find there was a delay before the Council acted on Mrs X’s planning enforcement complaint. The delay was largely caused by the covid19 pandemic. If Mrs X contacted the Council in January 2020, and not in March 2020 as the Council says, there may also have been unreasonable delay in a period between January and March 2020.
13. And the injustice caused by the delay? I accept Mrs X was inconvenienced when she could not use the footpath because it was a trip hazard. She and others had to walk on the other side of the road or on the road itself.
14. Mrs X also had to pursue matters with the Council before the developer completed the footpath.
15. But I do not find Mrs X suffered significant injustice in consequence of a delay to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.
16. The substantive matter of the planning enforcement complaint was resolved following action by the Council. I recognise Mrs X retains a sense of grievance because the Council did not act in a timely manner. However, this sense of grievance does not lead to a degree of injustice that warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. There was fault by the Council because of a delay in its planning enforcement investigation. But the delay did not cause Mrs X significant injustice that warrants further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman