Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in taking enforcement action against a breach of planning control at a site in the area where Mr X lives. We have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council. Also, we do not consider Mr X has suffered significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to accept a planning application for the site, the actions of a Council contractor or failures in the Council’s complaint handling. Finally, we consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer if he believes the Council is withholding information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to act promptly or transparently on unlawful development on a site in the area where he lives. He says the Council:
• Delayed in taking enforcement action despite an interim injunction being in place.
• Validated a planning application for the site despite the injunction.
• Failed to provide information on gypsy and traveller accommodation needed in the area.
• Failed to take remedial action when Council contractors deposited highway sweepings on the site; and
• Failed to follow its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome: 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’s complaint concerns unauthorised development at a site in the area where he lives.
6. The Council says it decided to update the parish council on a monthly basis because its enforcement team lacked the capacity to respond to the many individual messages it was receiving. The parish council publishes the updates on its website. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
7. Mr X says the Council has failed to provide information about the current number of gypsy and traveller accommodation needed in the area.
8. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the organisation set up by parliament to consider complaints about how the Council responds to requests for information. I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO if he believes the Council is refusing to provide information he believes he is entitled to receive.
9. The Council was granted an interim high court injunction and issued a stop notice to prevent unauthorised development including the creation of hard standings and residential caravans placed on the site.
10. The interim injunction prohibits any further unlawful use of the site. The Council confirms it sought advice on whether it could refuse to accept a planning application on the site. It decided to accept the application so it could assess the proposed development according to its policies, the needs of those on the site and the public. Mr X and other residents may comment on the application as part of the planning process. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s position, however it is a decision the Council is entitled to make. In any event, the Council refused the application. Therefore, I consider he has not suffered any personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to validate the planning application.
11. I understand the Council has applied for a permanent injunction on the site. A Public Inquiry is proposed for May 2026. I therefore consider that further investigation of this complaint would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Mr X complains the Council’s contractor deposited road sweepings on the site. The Council confirmed the contractor was not authorised to do this and it has will deal with the contractor direct. I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point.
13. Finally, Mr X says the Council has failed to follow its complaint procedure and our complaint handling guide. While we expect councils to follow their published procedures, we do not consider a failure on this point alone justifies an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating alleged delay in taking enforcement action or the Council’s decision to update the parish council only.
• We do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to accept a planning application for the site, or because of the contractor’s actions on the site.
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO if he believes the Council is withholding information; and
• We consider the injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s failure to follow its complaint procedure is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman