Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning enforcement matter. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by doing so. The Council has sought legal advice on the possibility of taking formal action and there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision to warrant further investigation. Further, the injustice Mr X claims is not directly related to the Council’s decision not to take formal action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to take action against a local business for breaching planning conditions relating to use of its business premises. He says vehicles belonging to the business obstruct a private road serving his property and cause noise disturbance. He also complains staff park on the road nearby, limiting the number of spaces available for visitors.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
5. The Council has explained it does not have enough evidence to show the business has breached the planning conditions and that even if it did, it does not consider it would be ‘expedient’ to take enforcement action at this time. Its decision is supported by clear rationale and I have seen no basis for us to question it.
6. Mr X is unhappy the Council does not have full records relating to the planning permission he believes the business has breached. But without the records themselves we could not say the Council’s decision should have been different.
7. The loss of the records caused Mr X some uncertainty about whether further action may have been possible but this is not significant to warrant further investigation. My decision on this point takes account of the fact the Council considers it would not be expedient to take enforcement action even if it could prove the business breached planning conditions. It is also relevant that enforcement action would not necessarily remedy the injustice Mr X claims. This is because the primary impact Mr X claims from the alleged breach of planning control relates to the business obstructing a private road contrary to the terms of a right of way and this is a matter between the relevant parties; even if the Council took action against the business it may continue to park on the private road and obstruct Mr X’s access and that of his neighbours. If Mr X believes the business has failed to comply with the terms of the right of way he may wish to seek legal advice about a claim against the business; this is where his remedy for the issue lies.
8. Mr X says staff working for the business park on the road nearby but the road is part of the public highway and has no parking restrictions. It may therefore be used by any motorist wishing to park there and there is no guarantee spaces will be available for Mr X or his visitors.
9. Mr X also complains about noise from the premises but this is a matter for its environmental health team. If Mr X believes noise coming from the premises amounts to a statutory nuisance he should report the matter to the Council. If he is not happy with its investigation or responses to his reports he may then raise a new complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could question the Council’s decision not to take action or that we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman