Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council on planning and enforcement matters. Mr X had a right to appeal against refusals of planning permissions or any enforcement notices. Also, Mr X wants the enforcement officer prosecuted, an apology and retraining. The Council has apologised for failing to follow the enforcement process correctly. It has arranged for further training for the officer. We cannot require the Council to prosecute its employee. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council harasses and intimidates business owners. He refers to planning applications he has made. He also refers to his wife being harassed over a planning enforcement issue for signage on a business property.
2. Mr X wants the Council to apologise, retrain officers and prosecute a specific officer.

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:

• 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.

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

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has apologised for errors in planning enforcement actions. It also confirmed it has arranged further training.
8. Mr X had a right of appeal against refusals of planning applications or enforcement notices. We consider it is reasonable to expect him to exercise that right.
9. We cannot prosecute the enforcement officer or require the Council to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We consider it reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal against refusals of planning permissions or service (if any) of enforcement notices.
• We consider the apology and retraining an appropriate remedy to failures to follow the correct planning enforcement process.
• We cannot prosecute a Council employee.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman