Summary: Mr X complains the Council has misled the Planning Inspector in connection with his appeal about a fence he wishes to retain on his property. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspector and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has misled the Planning Inspector in his appeal against the Council’s decision to issue an enforcement notice concerning a fence he wishes to retain on his property. He says the Council has not told the truth and he wants it to rescind the notice and reissue it correctly.

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 a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to the complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2017 Mr X erected an unauthorised fence on his property. The Council invited him to make a retrospective application to retain the fence. The Council considered the application but decided to refuse permission. Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspector against this decision, but his appeal was refused.
7. In 2019 the Council issued Mr X with an enforcement notice detailing the action Mr X had to take to address the planning breach caused by the presence of the fence.
8. Mr X appealed against this notice to the Planning Inspector and also complained to the Council about its handling of these matters. The Council addressed his complaint under the three stages of its complaints procedure but concluded it had not acted inappropriately in issuing the notice or in the conduct of the appeal made to the Planning Inspector.
9. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

10. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Mr X’s complaint. He appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision to issue an enforcement notice and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and cannot be investigated. If there are grounds for the notice to be rescinded and reissued, this is a matter for the Planning Inspector to determine.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X has sought to make a distinction between the conduct of the Council in the way it made its submissions to the Planning Inspector and its decision to issue the notice. However, this is still a complaint about a planning enforcement notice and Parliament has decided Mr X’s remedy is by way of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. He has appealed and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction
12. Mr X says the Planning Inspector cannot investigate the conduct of the Council, the honesty of its responses to his complaint or the health matters he has raised with the Council. However, these issues relate to the enforcement notice and if they are relevant to the Inspector’s decision they will be considered. They are not matters we will investigate in isolation of the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspector and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman