Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with planning enforcement matters relating to the unfinished conversion of a building near his property. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to him stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns a residential property on a managed estate. There is a building on the estate which is being converted by its owners after receiving planning permission several years ago. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly progress and conclude its planning enforcement process relating to the building;
2. failed to tell him the outcome of its enforcement investigation or to explain its decision;
2. Mr X says the delayed planning matter has caused ongoing uncertainty and distress to him and other residents. He says he has concerns about safety, security, and visual blight caused by the building. Mr X says the situation is negatively affecting his enjoyment of his property. He says the matter has undermined his confidence in planning controls. Mr X says he has been financially affected as the uncertain situation with the building reduces saleability and buyer confidence. He says he has spent significant time and effort chasing the matter with the Council.

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:

• 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

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X holds a lease on his property from the owner of the entire development, which includes the building being converted. He considers the Council has delayed in dealing with planning enforcement issues raised by the actions and inactions of the building’s owner. The Council says it carried out appropriate inspections, identified planning issues and considered whether it should use its discretionary enforcement powers. Officers have decided the level of harm caused by the planning matters did not justify use of their resources to take enforcement action in the public interest. They advised Mr X of their position earlier this year.
6. Even if there has been fault by the Council as complained about by Mr X, we will not investigate. We recognise the matter has caused Mr X some upset and uncertainty about what will happen with the building and he has safety and security concerns due to its current state. We understand he finds the building unsightly which he says has diminished his enjoyment of his property and reduces its saleability and value. The building is about 100 metres from Mr X’s property and other buildings would block views of it from there. He does not say there have been any specific events which have affected the security or safety of his property so any such impacts would be speculative concerns about what might happen.
7. In any event, these claimed injustices primarily stem from the building’s owner not completing the conversion, not from the Council’s enforcement process. Councils may use enforcement powers where work has been completed which they consider does not comply with the relevant planning permission. The Council determined the work which received planning permission has been started within the appropriate timescale so that permission remains active. It is enforcement officers’ role to assess whether completed works comply with the permission and to decide if any non-compliance justifies formal enforcement. We note Mr X says the matter has undermined his confidence in planning. But enforcement officers do not have powers to order developers to complete their commenced projects by any particular date. Once works under a permission have started, it is for the planning applicant to complete them. Mr X may wish to raise his concerns with his property’s lessor about the impacts on him of their ongoing incomplete conversion of the building.
8. We understand Mr X has spent time and effort on the matter with the Council. The building at issue and its condition has minimal impact on the amenity of his property and it was Mr X’s decision to pursue the matter with the Council rather than his lessor and the building’s owner. Neither this nor any other impacts to Mr X, even when taken together, amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice stemming from the Council’s enforcement role to justify us investigating, so we will not do so.
9. We recognise Mr X mentions the unfinished building has caused upset and uncertainty to other nearby residents. But any injustice claimed by others would not be a personal injustice to him we can take into account.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman