Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to acted swiftly on Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control and environmental harm and failure to protect approved plans. It is too late to complain about matters Mr X was aware of before 2024. Also we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s report of breaches of planning control. Finally, Mr X can appeal against the Council’s decision to serve him with a building notice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to act swiftly when he reported breaches of planning control
• Failed to uphold and protect the approved plans and Mr X’s drainage rights; and
• Failed to act swiftly on reports of environmental harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported several breaches of planning control at a nearby property:
• Diversion of a watercourse which has affected his drainage and riparian rights.
• Cutting of trees in a sensitive area along a watercourse.
• Installation of water pipes and electrical cables without permission.
• Erection of fencing along a watercourse.
• Construction of a raised gateway base; and
• Removal and blockage of Mr X’s drainage outlet.
6. The Council has visited the site. It confirms the diversion of the watercourse occurred many years ago and that Mr X has acknowledged this when he raised this matter some years ago. It has also confirmed had the diversion of the watercourse required planning permission, the passage of time means it has now become lawful and the Council cannot now take enforcement action.
7. The Council also confirms:
• The fence and raised gateway are permitted development.
• The drainage pipe and tree removal are not a planning matter.
8. A complaint about events occurring before July 2024 (including delay) is late. From the information I have seen it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to the Ombudsman much sooner about matters which occurred more than 12 months ago.
9. The Council also confirms an environmental health officer has visited the site. It has served a Building Notice under section 59 of the Building Act 1984. This requires Mr X to arrange for the foul drainage system serving his property to be emptied and thereafter routinely emptied; and to carry out necessary work to ensure satisfactory discharge of treated effluent.
10. If Mr X believes the responsibility for the work lays with someone else, he can appeal to the magistrate’s court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• It is too late to complain about matters occurring more than 12 months ago.
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his report of breaches of planning control to justify an investigation.
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the magistrate’s court against the building notice, if he believes he is not responsible for the work.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman