Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor do we consider further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure planning conditions were discharged before a development commenced in the village where she lives.
2. She says no one will know if there was anything of archaeological importance on the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council confirms it granted outline planning permission for a single new house in the village where Miss X lives. The permission included a condition to ensure suitable provision was in place to deal with any archaeology connected with the development.
7. It also confirms work commenced on excavation of foundations in 2018 and archaeological monitoring carried out. However, the archaeological contractor did not produce a report as required by the planning condition. The Council agrees this was a breach of planning control. However, the archaeological contractor for the site is no longer operating and their membership of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists has been suspended.
8. The Council says records show the risk to archaeologic features at the site is very low. Therefore, it decided it is not expedient to take further action against the breach of planning control.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has explained what happened and why it will not take further action. An investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
10. Also, I understand Miss X is interested in archaeological surveys produced in the village, but I do not consider she has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman