Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking planning enforcement action against unauthorised development and its delay responding to his complaint. Even if there has been Council fault, the matter does not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has failed to take enforcement action against an unauthorised development which contributed to the closure of a road;
2. delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X says his daughter lives in an area near the closed road. He says the road’s closure means he must take a longer detour when he visits her and his grandchildren. Mr X says other residents and local businesses have also been affected by the matter. He is concerned about the cost of the repairs to the public purse and that enforcement action may be timed out if the Council does not take it before four years have passed.
3. Mr X wants the Council to serve a planning enforcement notice on the developer, requiring the restoration of the land levels and the removal of unauthorised buildings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The site’s developer applied for permission several years ago, which the Council granted. Officers then determined the developer had done works which were not authorised by the permission. The developer lodged a variation of conditions application to include the works they had done, which the Council refused late last year.
7. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where they identify a planning control breach. They are required to investigate claimed breaches, but any enforcement is discretionary. It is for the authority to decide whether it is expedient to use its enforcement powers in each case. Officers have not yet taken planning enforcement action. We recognise Mr X considers the Council should enforce, but it is for the Council’s officers to make that decision.
8. Even if there has been and continues to be fault by the Council in its enforcement decisions in this matter, we will not investigate this complaint. Mr X lives over 10 miles from the development site so his own property is not affected by it. The diversions and alternative routes required because of the road closure, which Mr X needs to use when he visits his family members, add some minutes to his journey. We realise Mr X may find this annoying. But the level of inconvenience and cost caused to him by this does not amount to a significant personal injustice. The cost to the Council and all residents of the repairs to the road are not Mr X’s personal injustice. His own contribution to that cost from local or other taxation is minimal and an insufficient financial impact to be a significant injustice. We note Mr X says the road closure has also affected local businesses and other residents, but any such impacts are also not a personal injustice to him. The matter Mr X complains of do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to him to justify us using public funds to investigate.
9. The outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is for the Council to take enforcement action against the developer. We cannot order councils to take enforcement action. That we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate it.
10. Mr X also complains about the time the Council took to reply to his complaint. The Council apologised for the delay. In any event, we do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources, which come from the public purse, for use to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• even if there has been Council fault, the matter does not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman