Summary: There is no fault in action taken by the Council when it told Mr X to remove two structures from in front of his property. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s view he could have applied for a Certificate of lawful development or awaited for it to take enforcement action and appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with him when it asked him to remove two structures from the front of his house. Mr X says the Council had previously visited his house and did not tell him the structures could not be there. Mr X also says the Council has failed to deal with other breaches of planning law in the area which he has highlighted.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have put him to significant time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. 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.

6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have spoken to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided to the Ombudsman. This includes the Council’s responses to his complaint.
8. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Planning and planning enforcement

9. Recent government guidance says “enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.”
10. Councils can serve a notice if there is evidence that activity or development has taken place without planning permission. The law says a notice can only be served when it is “expedient” to do so. This means a council must show the breach is likely to cause harm to neighbouring residents, the public or the environment.
11. In most cases a council will ask a person to remove the unauthorized development or submit a planning application for it. If a person refuses to remove the unauthorised development or planning permission is refused councils will usually serve an enforcement notice requiring the development to be removed.
12. If a person is served with a notice and disagrees with it they may appeal to the Planning Inspector who makes decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State.
13. If a person fails to comply with a planning enforcement notice the Council can apply to court to have the person convicted of an offence. A person convicted can be issued with a fine.

What happened

14. In 2018 the Council wrote to Mr X and asked him to reduce the height of a wall at the front of the property. Mr X says he asked the Council for advice on two structures which were on his driveway. Mr X says the Council told him the structures did not require planning permission. The Council says this was informal advice based on information provided by Mr X that both structures were moveable and not fixed.
15. Mr X reduced the height of the wall at the front of his property. He also built a “temporary garage” at the front of the property. He says he built it in line with advice given by the Council about the other two structures on his driveway.
16. The Council visited Mr X’s property on 6 February 2019 to inspect the structures on his driveway. Mr X says the officer who visited his property said planning was a matter of opinion. Mr X says he did not hear further from the Council and when he chased it for a response it told him it was monitoring the situation. Mr X says he moved the structures to a different position during this time.
17. On 12 March 2019 the Council wrote to Mr X asking him to remove the structures in front of his property as they were not allowed under planning law and he did not have planning permission for them. Mr X says he tried to contact the Council to discuss the situation but received no response.
18. On 7 April 2019 Mr X raised a complaint with the Council about the way it had dealt with him and the lack of response to his telephone calls.
19. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 15 April 2019. The Council said it did not consider the structures to be “moveable” and they had remained in place since they were built. The Council said the fact the structures could be pushed around the site does not mean that they are not buildings.
20. The Council said it was unlikely to grant planning permission for the structures but invited Mr X to make a planning application. The Council said if Mr X believed the structures were allowed without planning permission he could apply for a Certificate of lawful development to protect himself against any enforcement action the Council might take.
21. The Council gave Mr X to the 8 May 2019 to make either application or it would take enforcement action with a view to removing the structures.
22. Mr X replied to the Council on 18 April 2019. He said there were factual inaccuracies in the Council’s complaint response and the Council had previously said the structures were allowed without planning permission. Mr X highlighted other potential breaches of planning law in his area and asked the Council to investigate these. Mr X also asked the Council to explain why the structures were not caught by same rules that applied to caravans and trailers.
23. The Council replied to Mr X on 24 April 2019. The Council maintained its position that the structures were in breach of planning law. The Council explained that caravans and trailers were treated differently and had specific definitions in law.
24. Mr X replied to the Council on 25 April 2019 and raised a number of issues with its services including missed bin collections, fly tipping and maintenance of local highways.
25. The Council replied to Mr X on 26 April 2019. The Council provided details of who was responsible for the non-planning related issues Mr X had raised. The Council also explained that it still considered the structures to be in breach of planning law and asked Mr X to confirm what action he intended on taking.
26. Mr X removed both structures in May 2019.

My findings

27. There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with the two structures on Mr X’s driveway. The Council explained why it believed these were in breach of planning law and required planning permission. The Council explained to Mr X what steps he should take to correct this.
28. If Mr X believed he did not require planning permission for the structures it was open to him to either apply for a Certificate of lawful development or await enforcement action by the Council which he could challenge with the Planning Inspector.
29. The Council’s informal advice to Mr X about the structures based on information he provided is not binding on the Council.
30. Mr X raised issues with a number of other structures in his area which he believes may be in breach of planning law. None of these structures have a direct impact on Mr X. Therefore, even if the Council has failed to properly consider these breaches of planning this has not caused Mr X an injustice. Therefore, I have discontinued my investigation into this part of his complaint.
31. Mr X has raised other issues with the way the Council manages its services. The Council has advised Mr X how to report these specific issues and which of these issues are the responsibility of other bodies. Therefore, there is no fault in the way the Council responded to this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation as I have found no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman