Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement issue because it concerns an issue of professional judgement and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We also could not say the Council’s actions caused the injustice Mr X claims or, therefore, achieve the outcome he wants. If Mr X disputed the decisions attached to the planning permission, or if he felt the Council had wrongly delayed dealing with his application, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, bought a building with prior approval for conversion to a dwellinghouse in 2022. The prior approval expired before he had completed the conversion and the Council therefore advised him to submit a planning application and not to carry out any further work until it had determined the application.
2. Mr X complains about the Council’s approach to the issue and believes it should have allowed him to complete the work without further permissions or threats of enforcement action. He says the Council’s actions led to delay in completing the conversion, resulted in the electrics for the building being exposed to wet weather and caused him financial loss. He also complains about the conditions attached to the planning permission and wants the Council to agree not to investigate any further complaints from his neighbours.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. 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)(b), as amended)
6. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The decision notice for the prior approval clearly stated work for the conversion must be completed within three years. Mr X purchased the building within this time but had only just started the work by the time the prior approval expired. Any actions carried out after the prior approval expired was therefore unauthorised and amounted to a breach of planning control.
9. Mr X believes the Council should have allowed him to continue the work regardless of the fact the prior approval had expired but it was under no obligation to do this. It clearly considered the development was not acceptable and advised Mr X to cease work because there was a risk it would refuse his application for planning permission. Mr X could have decided to ignore this advice and await formal action but he chose not to.
10. Mr X believes that because the Council’s planning committee has now granted planning permission to continue with the conversion and criticised the planning department for its actions this proves it was at fault. He therefore considers the Council should refund his application fees and pay him compensation.
11. But the planning committee’s decision does not show fault in the decision to invite Mr X to apply for planning permission or to advise him not to proceed with the development without it. These are matters of professional judgement and I have seen no grounds for us to question the Council’s approach. The planning department’s view on the development was consistent throughout and its approach to the issue follows relevant law and guidance. The grant of planning permission regularises the conversion of the building and adds value for Mr X and we would not recommend the Council refunds its fees or pays Mr X compensation.
12. Mr X considers the Council took too long to determine the application and claims its approach caused him financial loss and left the building in a dangerous state for longer than it should have been, but Mr X had a right of appeal for any delay which it would have been reasonable for him to use.
13. The state of the building was largely the result of starting work on the conversion with insufficient time to complete it and it was Mr X’s choice to cease work when he did, rather than continuing and awaiting any formal enforcement action. Further, while Mr X believes the building was unsafe and risked causing him injury or death we could not provide a remedy for something that could have happened but did not.
14. Mr X is also concerned about several conditions attached to the planning permission but it is not our role to decide if these are valid. As set out at Paragraph 5 the Planning Inspector can consider appeals against conditions and they are better placed to decide if they meet the relevant tests. If not, the Planning Inspector can remove or vary them; we have no such powers. I therefore consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to challenge the conditions with the Planning Inspector, if he believed they were unnecessary or wrong.
15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council should not deal with future complaints/reports from his neighbour because the Council has explained it has to investigate all valid concerns and we cannot say it must simply ignore them. It has directed Mr X to its antisocial behaviour team and to the police regarding his concerns about harassment from his neighbours and has explained that any issues he has regarding fencing between his property and a local watercourse would be a matter for the Internal Drainage Board. We could not add to the Council’s response to these points and it is therefore unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or to show the Council’s actions caused the injustice Mr X claims. Mr X also had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector which it would have been reasonable for him to use to challenge the conditions attached to the planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman