The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement response to a report of an alleged planning control breach at his property.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s use of a Planning Contravention Notice and unannounced enforcement visit to warrant investigation. We cannot make a finding on whether the Council was correct to require Mr X to apply for planning permission for his development because the planning position is not settled.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council: has taken planning enforcement action against him in response to anonymous reports from a neighbour; made an unannounced enforcement visit to his property; insisted on him applying for planning permission for the development he wanted which the Council refused, and he says he has since found out he can build under permitted development.
Mr X says the Council’s actions have resulted in significant stress, distress and expense for his family. He wants the Council to calm down its aggressive approach, let his family continue with dog showing and breeding, and provide compensation for the money spent battling the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X considers the Council was wrong to have investigated him for a possible planning control breach at his property in response to an anonymous report from his neighbour. Mr X says the neighbour who made the report makes repeated complaints and he believes they are trying to force his family from their home. Mr X considers an officer making an unannounced enforcement visit to his property shows the Council’s approach has been aggressive.
The Council says the available evidence indicates there may be a planning control breach at Mr X’s address. It says officers served a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) to find out more about the matter from Mr X. An enforcement officer also made an unannounced site visit to gather further information. The Council says it did this so it had more information before deciding how its enforcement investigation should proceed.
I recognise Mr X disputes the intentions and accuracy of the source of the report of the alleged planning breach. But councils have a duty to investigate such reports. It is for officers to use their discretionary powers to decide how to investigate them. Service of a PCN and unannounced site visits are two options at their disposal under the legislation. They enable officers to gather more information, so their enforcement process and the decision they reach is not solely reliant on the information in the initial report of the alleged breach. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its use of a PCN and unannounced site visit to warrant us investigating.
Mr X also says the Council insisted he submit a planning application for the development he wanted. He says he did this, the Council refused the permission and Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. Mr X says he now believes he can build what he needs under ‘permitted development’ (PD) rules, a set of criteria which allows some kinds of development without the need for planning permission.
We will not investigate this issue. We cannot make a finding on whether the Council was correct to insist Mr X submit a planning application because no decision has yet been made on the planning status of his development. I recognise Mr X considers the development is PD. But the planning position would need to be settled by later stages of the planning process, after the Council has decided how its enforcement process should go. The Ombudsman cannot intervene in the planning or enforcement processes. In any event, without evidence of what Mr X asserts regarding the Council’s insistence on him submitting a planning application, we cannot say it was fault. There is no different outcome an Ombudsman investigation would achieve here.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s use of a Planning Contravention Notice and unannounced enforcement visit to warrant investigation; and we cannot make a finding on whether the Council was correct to require Mr X to apply for planning permission for his development because the planning position is not settled.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman