Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in a planning enforcement investigation. The Council has apologised for the delay which I consider appropriate. I do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. I do not consider the delay in the investigation led directly to the breach of planning control being immune from prosecution.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to act on his reports of breaches of planning control within published timescales. He says the operator of the site now has immunity from prosecution by claiming to have breached planning conditions for more than ten years. He also says the Council has breached his data protection as it has potentially identified him to the site operator.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:
• make a public apology for the delay
• reprimand Officers who he says have falsified information; and
• enforce the planning conditions

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained a local shoot was breaching planning conditions by:
• continuing to shoot past 1300 on a Tuesday; and
• by allowing competitors/customers to use their own guns
8. Planning controls the design, location, and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with planning conditions to control the use or development of land.
9. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a developer has breached planning rules. However, councils do not have to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
10. Government guidance says:

“Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 207)”

11. The Council’s Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Plan says:

“Where a breach of planning control has occurred, we will consider the planning merits of the development being undertaken, taking into account national and local planning policies, and will decide on the most appropriate of action. When making that decision we will take into consideration the public interest and the expediency of formal enforcement action.”

12. In this case the Council accepts there has been delay. However, it confirms it has visited the site and:
• it has received evidence from the site operator the condition restricting the guns permitted has been breached for more than ten years – therefore this is immune from enforcement action.
• it has not received any other reports of breaches of planning conditions about the direction of fire/location of stands and operating hours. It has received no evidence to show this is causing a noise nuisance or other harm. During site visit the stands were in the correct location and direction of fire complied with the planning permission.
• Officers consider there is limited harm by shooting after 1300 on a Tuesday. This is no different to shooting after 1300 on any other day of the week. It has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action on issue.
13. The Council is satisfied that evidence provided by the site operator shows the condition on the type of guns permitted on site has been breached for more than ten years. It is therefore exempt from planning enforcement action. Given the time the condition has been breached I do not consider the delay in investigating Mr X’s report directly caused the immunity.
14. Turning to the breach of condition restricting shooting after 1300 on a Tuesday. The Council has considered this point and decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action on this point. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
15. The Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Plan also states the Council will investigate non-priority breaches of planning control, including a site visit within ten days of receiving the report.
16. The Council acknowledges there was a significant delay in responding to Mr X’s report of breaches of planning control. However, this occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prohibition of site visits during the pandemic and an increased workload led to a backlog of enforcement cases. I acknowledge lack of action or information was frustrating for Mr X, who spent time pursuing the matter requesting updates. However, I do not consider this to be sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation. I consider the explanation and apology to be an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.
17. Finally, if Mr X believes the Council has breached his data privacy by divulging his name to the site operator, it is reasonable to expect him to raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the body set up by Parliament to uphold data protection and information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• The injustice caused by the delay and lack of communication is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
• Having investigated Mr X’s reports the Council has made decisions it is entitled to make and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
• It is reasonable for Mr X to raise concerns about breaches of data protection with the ICO.
• The Council has apologised for the delay in dealing with Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control and I consider this an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman