Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to act on breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council came to the decisions not to take enforcement action. We cannot require the Council to make the landowner remove the containers on the site or cease using the site for business purposes. Finally, the Council has apologised for the delay in telling Ms X of the outcome of its consideration of her reports of breaches of planning control. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to act of breaches of planning control on land next to her and her mother’s home.
2. She says there are shipping containers on the land which overlook and spoil the view from her home and use of her garden.
3. Ms X wants the Council to require the owner to remove the containers from the land and stop running a business from the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 the complainants and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Planning enforcement is discretionary. Government guidance says action should be proportionate to the breach of planning control and taken when it is expedient to do so. In deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Councils may decide to take formal action, or not to act at all.
8. In this case, the Council investigated the reported breaches of planning control. It:
• visited the site
• contacted the landowner
• researched the site history; and
• considered the information provided by Ms X.
9. It has decided the shipping containers do not need planning permission as they are not permanent structures. It has also decided the site has been used for mixed use since 2008 and is therefore the change of use to storage is immune from enforcement action. Having considered the information available, and followed the correct procedure, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
10. The Council has apologised to Ms X for the delay in confirming it will not be taking enforcement action against the landowner of the site next to her home.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• The Council has followed the process we expect to see before making its decisions that the shipping containers do not need planning permission. And the mixed use of the site is immune from enforcement action because of the passage of time. These are decisions it is entitled to make.
• We cannot require the Council to make the landowner remove the containers and cease using the site for business purposes.
• The Council has apologised for the delay in informing Ms X of its decisions, and we consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman