Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement issues on a site next to the complainant. There are no grounds to consider matters which arose more than 12-months ago, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s recent planning enforcement decisions, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council has refused to enforce breaches of planning control at a neighbouring site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. And 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X.
• information about the planning applications and enforcement notice relating to the site, as available on the Council's website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The time restriction detailed above would apply to any parts of the complaint about matters which Mrs X has been aware of for more than 12 months. For example, the retrospective application was determined in Spring 2022, yet Mrs X did not contact the Ombudsman until September 2023. I see no reasons why Mrs X would have been prevented from contacting us sooner, so we would not investigate any late parts of the complaint now.
7. I also appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s more recent decisions on planning enforcement issues at the site. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against those decisions. Rather, we consider if there is any fault in the way they were made.
8. Planning enforcement action is discretionary and government guidance says councils should act proportionately when considering whether action is expedient. There is no expectation councils should automatically enforce against every planning breach.
9. The Council has explained to Mrs X that it will not pursue some of the enforcement issues whilst it awaits the Planning Inspector’s decision on an enforcement notice appeal relating to the site. It has also explained why it does consider there are grounds to take enforcement action against other planning breaches Mrs X has raised. These are professional judgements the Council is entitled to make, even if Mrs X disagrees with them. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.
10. In addition, we cannot instruct the Council to issue an enforcement notice for any outstanding planning breaches, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there are no grounds to consider matters which arose more than 12-months ago, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s recent planning enforcement decisions, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman