Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement delays as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delays by the Council in taking enforcement action against a developer for delays in implementing a landscaping condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to ensure that a developer has planted hedgerows or trees as required by planning condition.
6. Planning permission was granted in 2020 for a large development of houses with a number of planning conditions relating to highway, landscaping, drainage etc. There was initial concern by the landscaping consultee in that the works carried out did not reflect the approved plans. However, those plans were considered acceptable in November 2021.
7. Since that date the Council said (in January 2024) that delays have occurred because the Planning Officer needed to re-consult the landscaping architect and review the condition with principal Planning Officers. The Council says that this was complicated by the fact that the original Planning Officer has now left the Council.
8. I appreciate that the delays have been frustrating for Mr X and his neighbours but this is clearly a very large development and complications will arise. It is not for the Ombudsman to require the Council to prioritise all planning matters causing upset. If the delays are significantly longer Mr X may make a further complaint to this office but at this point I do not consider the delays to be fault.
9. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman