Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a conditioned landscaping scheme attached to planning permissions granted for development in his area. We will not investigate the complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council with regard to more recent events.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains that in 2016 the Council agreed to a landscaping scheme for a development in his area without taking advice from a qualified landscape architect and ignored his comments when he said the scheme was not suitable. He also complains about the Council’s subsequent handling of matters relating to landscaping at the site and that it has failed to take appropriate enforcement action to address planning breaches. Mr X says he has spent many hours over many years trying to get the Council to take suitable and timely action.

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 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2016 the Council granting planning permission for a development in Mr X’s local area and attached to it conditions requiring a landscaping scheme. The Council approved a scheme which Mr X, based on his own expertise, considered unsuitable and told the Council of his view.
7. The approved scheme was not implemented by the landowner and the Council in subsequent years came to the view that the level of planting required by the scheme had been excessive. It has since worked with the landowner to try and resolve matters and achieve an acceptable scheme.
8. In 2018 the Council issued Enforcement Notices for planning breaches related to a hardstanding and an extended bund at the site. In 2019 the landowner removed the extended bund and undertook planting. The Council told the landowner it would revisit in April 2020 to assess the planting and said that additional planting might be required depending on whether there were gaps or if species had died during winter.
9. In response to a formal complaint Mr X made in 2020 about these matters, the Council explained its position and the action it had taken over the years, addressing the specific issues Mr X had raised. It confirmed that it continued to seek the implementation of a suitable landscaping scheme.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

11. This is clearly a matter which has concerned Mr X for a number of years. However, the restriction highlighted at paragraph 2 of this statement applies to past events and we will not investigate them due to the passage of time. I see no ground which warrant exercising discretion to do so now.
12. With regard to more recent events, councils are not obliged to take enforcement action when a planning breach occurs and they will decide whether, in a particular case, such action is expedient. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint adequately addressed the various concerns he raised. It set out its view on the original approved landscaping scheme and why it was not seeking compliance with it. While Mr X may have his own views, this decision, and whether enforcement action is expedient, is for the Council to take and we cannot review the merits of it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council with regard to more recent events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman