Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the issue did not cause them significant injustice. We will not investigate their complaint about the Council’s planning advice as there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs X, complain the Council failed to properly investigate their reports of planning breaches at a nearby property or to stop the breaches. They also complain about the Council’s planning advice, which they claim led them to incur unnecessary expense.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Planning enforcement issues

4. It is clear Mr and Mrs X are concerned about others failing to follow the rules but this is not an injustice to them. Mr and Mrs X’s property is some 200m away from the site of the alleged breaches and we do not consider any breach caused them significant injustice. We will not therefore investigate this issue further.

Planning advice

5. Mr and Mrs X sought advice from the Council about whether they needed planning permission for an occasional change of use. The Council advised the complainants to apply for planning permission, which they did, and the Council granted permission.
6. Mr and Mrs X say they have recently found out they could use their land without planning permission for up to 28 days. They therefore consider the planning permission was unnecessary and want the Council to refund their application fee.
7. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s advice to Mr and Mrs X as there is no evidence to show the Council’s advice was wrong or that Mr and Mrs X told the Council that any change of use would last for less than 28 days. Mr and Mrs X consider it was the Council’s responsibility to explain this to them but we cannot expect the Council to advise of every possibility. The Council’s advice sought to ensure Mr and Mrs X would not commit planning breaches of their own but it was only advice. Had Mr and Mrs X felt the benefit of gaining planning permission was not worth the cost of making an application they could have decided not to proceed. But they did and they have now got permission for the change of use. They can therefore use the site as they wished, for longer than they would be able to otherwise. The planning permission may also increase the value of the land, should they decide to sell it in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr and Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman