Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near the complainant’s home. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with possible breaches of planning control at a site near his home. Mr X has also raised concerns about the decision to originally grant planning permission for the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council granted planning permission for a site near Mr X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions some of which placed restrictions on the use of the site. Mr X says the planning conditions have not been complied with.
8. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
9. The Council says it has investigated possible breaches at the site over the years since permission was granted. However, it says it has not taken formal enforcement action as it has not seen sufficient evidence of a breach. The Council says it is now unable to take action as the potential breach has become immune from enforcement action as it has been ongoing for more than 10 years.
10. I understand Mr X may disagree, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide it cannot take enforcement action. As the Council has properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr X has also raised concerns about anti-social behaviour and noise from the site. But Mr X can report these issues to the Council and it has offered to help Mr X gather information in this regard.
12. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s decision to approve the planning application for the site. However, I consider this part of Mr X’s complaint late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been many years since planning permission was granted and Mr X knew about the application at the time. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman about this matter sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman