Canterbury City Council (24 005 950)
Category : Planning > Enforcement
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 06 Dec 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on unauthorised development of a site near his home. We consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also there is an open enforcement case for the site and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council has acted unlawfully and wasted taxpayer money. He wants the Council to act on the Enforcement Notices which are in place on the site.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B).
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The Council served Enforcement Notices in 2016 against the unlawful development of two houses and outbuildings. The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the later appeal.
- An enforcement notice on one of the houses was implemented and the building demolished several years ago.
- The Council confirms:
- It secured a high court injunction prohibiting further development of the land.
- Following receipt of legal advice it decided not to pursue demolition of the second property. And
- There is a current, ongoing investigation into the further, unauthorised development on the site.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint. We cannot require the Council to pursue demolition of the second property. It confirms it sought legal advice before making this decision which is one it is entitled to make. Also as there is an open investigation into further development on the site further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman