Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to enforce against a breach of planning control, the handling of planning applications and the Council’s complaints procedure. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• has allowed work including importing waste to continue in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) without any planning consent and failed to take any action to correct
• accepted and consulted on a planning application which contained false, misleading, and inadequate information
• made contradictory statements about what action the Council has requested from the landowner
• suggested the continuing work is permitted development without justification; and
• only responded to his complaint after he contacted his MP.
2. He wants the Council to:
• require the land reinstated to its former condition
• justify the reasons for deciding the continuing work is permitted development; and
• review its complaint process

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. Mr X reported breaches of planning control on a site near his home in March.
7. The Council investigated and decided there had been a change of use at the site. The site owner put in a retrospective planning application to regularise the breach.
8. The Council continued to investigate and in December confirmed there were still breaches of planning control on the site. It says it advised the landowner that all “unlawful use of the land must cease and [be returned to its former condition] including removing all unauthorised materials by 31 January.”
9. The owner withdrew the retrospective planning application.
10. The Council advised it will require the landowner to return the site to its former condition and continue to check progress with site visits. A recent visit by officers found evidence of movement of earth on the land to bring it closer to a location for removal. Officers also noted an area of land where the levels have been raised, but consider the overall difference is limited.
11. Mr X was advised that any concerns about the site owner importing rubble or waste are matters for the Environment Agency.
12. So, the Council has acted on Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control. It confirms it will continue to monitor the site to ensure it is returned to its former condition. I understand progress may be slower than Mr X considers acceptable. However, the Council has advised that formal enforcement action may slow progress as an Enforcement Notice may be appealed to the Planning Inspector. The Council cannot take any action while an appeal is in progress.
13. Mr X also complains the Council accepted an application with inadequate and misleading information. However, Mr X commented on the application, and the application was withdrawn. Therefore I do not consider this caused Mr X a significant personal injustice and therefore an investigation on this point is not justified.
14. The Council is processing an application for tourism facilities on the site. Mr X has commented on the application and a decision is yet to be made. Therefore I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point. When the planning decision is made, Mr X can complain if he believes the Council has failed to follow the correct procedure.
15. Finally, Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his complaint until he involved his MP. While we expect the Council to follow its complaints procedure, we do not consider a significant personal injustice has been caused to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions; and
• we do not consider Mr X has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman