Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take action over his reports of the breach of planning conditions on land next door to his home. We do not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the land in use next door to his home is supposed to close at 11pm and stays open much later, in breach of planning control.
2. Mr X has complained about this for nine years, and says he has been ignored by the Council.
3. Mr X would like an apology from the Council and compensation for the distress caused by him having to let the Council know every time the breach occurs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Planning enforcement

9. We expect councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of planning 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.
10. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, so councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.

What happened

11. Planning permission was granted around ten years ago for use of land next to Mr X’s home.
12. The entrance to the land is to the rear and side of Mr X’s house. There are two gates.
13. A condition of granting the planning permission was to limit the use and access of the land between 11pm and 7am, which means the gates should be closed and locked. Mr X says the gates are often open beyond midnight which results in antisocial behaviour next to his home.
14. There have been long standing issues and disputes between Mr X and the owner of the land. Mr X says he has been complaining to the Council for nine years about breaches of planning conditions, and feels he has been ignored.
15. Mr X made a complaint to the Council at the end of April 2023. He said the problems are continuing with the breach of planning conditions he has been reporting for the last ten years.
16. We have investigated previous complaints from Mr X so this investigation looks at this specific complaint from April 2023.
17. The Council responded in May saying it “has taken and continues to take steps in line with both the statutory and policy obligations regarding planning conditions.” The Council said the matter is being “actively considered”. It signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.
18. Mr X was unhappy with the response from the Council so he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
19. In response to our enquiries the Council said:
• It had considered and logged all Mr X’s complaints. It does not refute the land has been open past 11pm however mostly the breach has been minimal (83% less than 25 minutes);
• The Planning Enforcement Manager made the decision, supported by the Director of Community and Environment Services, the Head of Public Protection and the Head of Legal, that it is not proportionate or in the public interest to prosecute the landowner for the breach;
• If the landowner applied to have the condition removed, the Council thinks it would likely be removed;
• It has taken informal action by negotiating with the landowner to have an electric closing mechanism attached to the gates, which would remove the need for human interaction. This is still under discussion;
• No site visits have taken place and there are no documents to support the Council’s consideration of the reports made by Mr X;
• It has devoted a significant amount of time and resources to the repeated and continuing disputes between Mr X and the landowner over several years. It will continue to consider all matters raised by both parties in accordance with its statutory duties.
20. In response to the first draft decision the Council told me it decided in November 2022 the process had been exhausted in investigating the repeated issues. The Council told Mr X and his family.
21. The Council said unless it was a matter of antisocial behaviour, or the car park had been kept open for over an hour past its closing time, it would not investigate any further.

Analysis

22. The Council considered and logged Mr X’s complaints as set out in paragraph 19.
23. The Council took the view that it had to do something, so it took informal action to negotiate with the landowner as set out in paragraph ten. I therefore cannot find fault with the Council as it has followed the correct procedures.
24. The Council discussed the many complaints in a Teams meeting and took the view it could not investigate the same issue repeatedly, unless other issues had arisen from the same complaint. I am satisfied the correct procedure was followed so again I cannot find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

I do not find fault with the Council for no longer looking into Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning conditions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman