Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control and an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and its decision to grant his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD).

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 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council has dealt with various breaches of planning control and the Council’s decision to grant his neighbour’s CLOPUD application. However, I consider Mr X’s complaints about these matters late.
7. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The CLOPUD application was approved more than a year ago and it has also been more than 12 months since the Council decided not to take enforcement action in relation to most of the potential breaches Mr X reported. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate. Mr X knew about the issues he has complained about at the time and could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has already considered Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a window inserted at his neighbour’s property. I will not consider the same issue again as part of this complaint.
8. I have considered Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s recent decision not to take enforcement action in relation to the use of his neighbour’s annex.
9. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action.
10. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
11. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mr X’s concerns and explained why it does not consider there has been a planning breach. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of his complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman