The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action against a business near to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action against a business near his home which he says has developed beyond the planning uses approved for its operations in the past. He says this has led to noise and light pollution and although the Council has opened two enforcement cases in the past six years it has not taken further action.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained about the operations of a nearby agricultural business which he says has changed its operations and us of the site since it obtained planning approvals in 2012 and 2016. He says the increased business use and storage of equipment outside was reported in previous years but the Council did not take action. He believes the original planning approval conditions may have been badly worded which has allowed the changes to take place.
We will not consider the earlier approvals or the enforcement case opened in 2016 because these took place outside the normal 12-month limit for receiving complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We can consider the Council’s most recent enforcement case which was opened in September 2021 and closed in 2022.
The Council investigated the complaints which Mr X had raised about the site relating to additional office use, storage and noise/light pollution. The Council told him that, given the time over which any changes had taken place, it would not be expedient to take enforcement action now. Many of the points he raised relate to non-material planning matters or were considered at the time of the applications.
Planning enforcement is discretionary and the government guidance expects local planning authorities to decide if there is sufficient harm to the public interest and whether it is expedient to serve an enforcement notice before doing so. The Council in this case decided it was not expedient to take further action.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made and if there was any fault. In this case there is no evidence that the enforcement process was not fully considered.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action against a business near to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman