Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case and subsequent planning application in connection with a development near the complainant’s home. There is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the enforcement issues and related planning application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action when a nearby building was being built contrary to the approved plans, and it failed to properly consider the subsequent, retrospective planning application. Mr X also says there were delays and confusion in the subsequent complaints process.

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 can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. But if there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. And whilst we can investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies, we cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as parish councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
6. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications on the Council’s website.
• Mr X’s comments on an earlier version of this statement.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Mr X thinks the works should have stopped whilst the application was being determined, and that the Council should not have granted planning permission for the changes to the originally approved design.
9. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decisions. Rather, our role is to review the way they were made. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question whether the Council should have reached a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. I find there is not enough evidence of fault, in the way the Council handled the enforcement case and subsequent application, to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Here, the Council has explained there was a possibility that retrospective planning permission might be granted, so it was not expedient to issue a stop notice.
• It would be very unusual for a stop notice to be issued in a case like this.
• There was no requirement for the Council to visit Mr X before determining the retrospective application.
• Mr X was able to submit objections to the application, and these are referred to in the delegated report.
• The report goes on to consider the relevant material planning considerations, and explains why the development is acceptable. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision, but the Ombudsman cannot question the professional judgement of officers if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive issues being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue the alleged faults in the complaints process in isolation.
12. Finally, we cannot investigate any parts of the complaint about the parish council’s actions in relation to its comments on the planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint primarily because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the enforcement case and subsequent planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman