Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council:
• Failed to acknowledge his report of a breach of planning control according to its Local Enforcement Plan.
• Failed to publish its Local Enforcement Plan online; and
• Failed to act on his reports of breaches of planning control at his neighbour’s property.
2. He wants the Council to:
• Apologise for the delay and lack of investigation;
• Re-categorise the reported breach and provide written reasons for its decision; and
• Pay him compensation for the frustration, wasted time and uncertainty the Council has caused.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 a breach of planning control at his neighbour’s property. He said the neighbour has:
• put down an area of blocked paving which is causing flooding; and
• has parked a broken-down car in the turning area.
7. The Council confirms it has visited the site.
8. Paving the front of a property is usually permitted development if the paved area is less than five square metres. In this case the Council acknowledges the paved area exceeds five square metres. However the officer’s opinion is the excess area is minimal and there is no evidence to show the excess area would cause additional flooding. The Council considers that if the neighbour applied for retrospective planning permission it is likely to grant permission. Therefore the Council has decided it is not expedient to taken enforcement action against this breach of planning control.
9. The Council confirms one of the conditions on the planning permission for the site says:

“The parking and turning areas shown on Drawing No. SP1 April 2004 Rev A (dated as being received on 18.8.2004) shall at all times be maintained and retained for their designated purposes for the life of the development.”

10. The Council correctly states that parking of a car in the turning area does not constitute development. Therefore the condition is not breached and is not a matter for planning enforcement. It advised Mr X he can take civil action against his neighbour or seek his own legal advice.
11. I understand Mr X is concerned that by blocking the turning area with a non-roadworthy car, the neighbour is breaching planning control and preventing him from carrying out repair works to his sewage treatment plant. However, this is a civil matter between him and his neighbour.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s report of breaches of planning control.
13. Mr X also complained the Council failed to acknowledge his report and the Enforcement Plan was not on its website. The Council has confirmed it sent an automatic acknowledgement of receipt of Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control within three days according to its Enforcement Plan. It has also published the Enforcement Plan on its website and apologised for the failure to do this previously. I consider further investigation of these matters will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr ’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action against his neighbour breach of planning control; and
• Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman