Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement or legal action against a hotel owner after they contracted with national government for their premises to be used to house asylum seekers. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, nor sufficient injustice stemming from the planning issues, to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a village. He complains the Council:
1. incorrectly decided a local hotel was not required to have planning permission to house asylum seekers;
2. took advice from legal experts who did not visit the site;
3. failed to address his points about the impact on the area;
4. failed to properly explain their decision.
2. Mr X says the matter has had an immense impact on him and the rest of the village community. He says it has caused divides between family and friends. Mr X says there have been incidents between village residents who disagree on the matter, and between village and hotel residents, with the police being involved. Mr X says changes at the hotel have led to a loss of local business and employment, access to the gym and swimming pool for village residents, and changes to the appearance of the hotel. He wants the Council to require the hotel to follow the planning process so the impact on the area can be considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, online maps and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council could only consider the change of the area’s character relating to material planning matters, not social or police matters. The planning issues the Council could consider included increased noise or disturbance, or changes to the building’s appearance.
7. The Council took legal advice on the circumstances which concluded the planning harms caused by national government’s arrangement with the hotel’s owners to use the premises to house asylum seekers did not give them grounds to take enforcement or legal action. The advisor’s role was not to visit and assess the site or wider local area, but to give advice on the legal and planning issues raised by the matter. Officers decided there had been no material planning change to the hotel which would support enforcement or other action. That was a decision officers were entitled to make. Officers did consider the way some of the hotel’s signs had been covered was of poor quality so said they would speak to the hotel’s owners to see if it could be improved.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant an investigation. Officers took advice and have taken account of the relevant planning issues raised by the hotel’s change of business practice in reaching their decision not to enforce. They have explained to Mr X the matters they could and could not take into account when considering the planning issues raised by the matter, and the reasons for their decision. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there were fault by the Council in its planning consideration here, we would not investigate. Mr X does not live in sight of or near the hotel. None of the material planning issues stemming from the current use of the hotel, such as the covered signage or increased security measures, cause Mr X a significant injustice to warrant us investigating. No other claimed injustices to Mr X or other residents caused by the impact of the hotel’s current use stem from a Council decision or action.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation; and
• the planning matters complained of do not cause such a significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman