Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a business near Mr X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to enforce planning conditions on operating hours at a neighbouring haulage site. He says an Officer has abused his power by making up rules and conspired with drivers to evade planning conditions.
2. He wants the Council to:
• Force the haulage company not to open its gates before 6am.
• Discipline or prosecute the Officer.
• Provide a remedy for the abuse he and his family have suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council confirms the company has three sites on the same road. I shall call these sites A, B and C.
7. There are no restrictions on the operation hours for site A. Therefore, vehicles have 24-hour access to exit and enter the site. Site B and C are restricted to no operation before 6am Monday to Friday and between 8am and 2pm on Saturdays.
8. The Council confirms it has investigated Mr X’s reports that the site gates are opened before 6am, breaching planning conditions.
9. It can only control activity within the site boundaries. Anyone can use the road where the sites are located and vehicles not visiting the sites cannot be controlled.
10. The Council confirms there were a small number of occasions where vehicles left the site a few minutes before 6am. These had been brought to the company’s attention. However, the Council considered it was not expedient to take formal enforcement action.
11. The Ombudsman does not provide a right to appeal against the Council’s decision that there is no breach of planning control. Our role is to consider the process by which the Council has reached its decision.
12. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control.
13. Mr X also complains the Council made fraudulent changes to a planning application. The Council confirms the business put in a planning application. In response to the question of whether the applicant had a connection to the Council, the applicant had entered the name of the head of the Planning Department in error. This was because the Officer had provided pre application advice. This error was corrected. The Council has confirmed the applicant is not related to any member of staff or elected Member of the Council.
14. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s correction of the planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action, nor in the way it corrected the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman