Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to further enforce against unauthorised development on land in his area. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making to warrant an investigation. Even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X sufficient significant injustice to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where unauthorised development took place on a piece of green belt land. He complains the Council has failed to enforce to get the landowners to do all remedial works on the land.
2. Mr X says if the plastic, hardstanding and rubble is not removed from the land, this will increase the risk of flooding to neighbouring properties. He also says if building foundations and the hardstanding are not removed, it will cause future planning disputes regarding the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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.

(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, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. The Council considered the owner who had developed the land without permission had ultimately complied with its Enforcement Notice to its satisfaction. Officers recognised Mr X’s concerns that parts of the notice’s terms had not been completed by the owner. They visited the site to assess the matter. Officers considered further enforcement would not be an expedient process for the Council to pursue, as the impact was insufficiently significant.
8. The Council’s enforcement powers are discretionary. It is for officers to decide when and to what extent they should be used. Officers considered the planning outcome achieved by their enforcement and decided to take no further action. That was a professional judgement officers were entitled to make. There is not enough fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there has been Council fault here, we will not investigate. Mr X’s property is about 200 metres away from the development site. The impact on his property caused by the items remaining on the land due to the Council’s decision not to further enforce does not amount to a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation. Mr X’s claimed injustices of future flooding and planning dispute issues are speculative ones which have not happened. We do not consider injustice from events which have not occurred. There is insufficient personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of here to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to justify an investigation; and
• the matters complained of do not cause him sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman