Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to correct a breach of planning control. Also it is too late to consider complaints about decisions to grant planning permission made more than four years ago. Finally, we are satisfied that an apology for the delay in updating the complainant of the progress of a planning enforcement investigation is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains the Council failed :
• to confirm whether it will act on an alleged breach of planning control; and
• failed to protect her amenity

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In February 2022, Miss X reported a breach of planning control at a site next to her home.
8. The Council says it inspected the site in April 2022. It says the owner was storing excess materials in the yard and the parking area has been extended by around ten metres, both breaches of planning control. It says it advised the owner the yard/parking area was not to be used as a temporary storage. The site owner confirmed he had rented a yard off-site, but it would take time to move the stored items.
9. In May, the Council sought an update from the site owner. He confirmed the yard would be cleared of unauthorised material by August. The Council agreed to extend time.
10. At the end of August, Officers visited the site again. It noted the excess materials had been removed. The Council decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action to reduce the unauthorised extension of the parking area. It advised the owner to put in a retrospective planning application.
11. The Council’s enforcement plan states:

“ If a person(s) notifying the Council of an alleged breach identifies themselves by name and address and requests to be informed of the outcome, the Council will usually seek to advise that person(s) of the result of any investigation and any actions taken by the Council.”

12. Miss X asked for updates following her report of the breach. The Council did not respond. Miss X engaged a solicitor who wrote to the Council asking for an update, unfortunately the Council missed this as well. An officer drafted a response to Miss X’s concerns in November 2022, but due to a combination of human error and staff annual leave, the response was not sent. This is fault.
13. In January 2023, the Council responded to Miss X’s concerns. It apologised for the delay in responding to her concerns. It also confirmed a new enforcement case was opened following acknowledgements of new breaches of planning control relating to movement of vehicles outside of permitted hours.
14. The Council confirms it received a retrospective planning application to regularise the breach of planning control at the parking area. It publicised the application and Miss X objected. Having considered her objections and the merits of the application, the Council granted planning permission with restrictions on the movement of vehicles in June 2023. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective application.
15. Miss X also complains the Council failed to protect her amenity. Planning permission for an extension to the industrial premises was granted in 2015. Permission for the car park and delivery holding area was granted in 2019. Miss X was aware of both applications. The law says a person must complain to the Ombudsman within twelve months of becoming aware of the matter. It is therefore too late to complain about the decisions to grant planning permission in 2015 and 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• we will not exercise discretion and investigate complaints about planning permission granted more than a year ago as there is no good reason to do so
• there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective planning application to keep the increased parking area; and
• the Council has apologised for the failure to update her on the progress of its planning enforcement investigation. We consider this to be a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman