Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is insufficient injustice caused by alleged fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of her parents that the Council did not notify them of a planning application and failed to take enforcement action when necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s parents live across the road from an agricultural development. A planning application was granted by the Council in 2021 for a new storage workshop.
7. Ms X argues that the land beneath the building has been raised without planning permission and a footpath has been blocked.
8. The Council says that the land raise did not need planning permission as it used soil from a previous development.
9. The building is several metres away from the road with high trees in between. Ms X’s parents would have little view of the barn in summer and a very reduced view of it in winter. I do not consider the barn or the raised height of the barn causes such significant injustice to them as to warrant investigation. Further, loss of a view is not a planning consideration and could not be used to justify a refusal of a planning application.
10. The Council says the footpath is no longer obstructed and so no enforcement action would be appropriate.
11. The planning enforcement process we expect is as follows. We expect councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to react. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.
12. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the question of enforcement of the footpath blockage. Ms X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision. The Council also properly considered the question of raised land but decided that enforcement action was not appropriate. Again, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman could not question that decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman