Agenda item

To report the finding by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman on a complaint determined by them in respect of a non-executive matter.

Members were reminded that the Constitution (Article 12.03(a)) required the Monitoring Officer to report to Council (or to Cabinet for executive functions) if any decision or omission had given rise to maladministration.  This report (A.8) concerned an omission that the Local Government and Social Ombudsman (‘the Ombudsman’) had determined was maladministration. 

Members were made aware that this report was also required under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in view of the aforementioned decision in this matter by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman as was mentioned in Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974.  The Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer had been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Council was informed that the complaint concerned the way the Council had handled a planning enforcement and anti-social behaviour report from a member of the public.  The member of the public had reported to the Council alleged breaches of planning control (and anti-social behaviour) which they said had meant they could not use and enjoy their own property in the area concerned.

By way of background, it was reported that Councils could take enforcement action if they found that planning rules had been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there had been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement was discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When 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.

Council was advised that, in this case, the Council had received and acted on an initial report of planning breaches (and anti-social behaviour).  This had included meeting with the individual concerned.  A further communication from the individual was then not directly responded to by the Council in a timely way.  The Council had though, across that time, undertaken extensive works to establish the degree of the planning breach and to inform action on the reports received.  Interaction with the landowner in respect of matters at the site concerned had also been undertaken to address issues raised by the member of the public. 

Members were told that the non-response to the second communication referenced above was, the Ombudsman had concluded, maladministration.  The Ombudsman had been satisfied that the member of the public concerned had suffered avoidable frustration and uncertainty during the period to date.  The planning enforcement case was still open.

The Ombudsman had identified the following as an acceptable remedy and the Council had agreed to this as a suitable remedy:

a)    Within one month to provide a written apology for the delay identified and it’s planning enforcement investigation.  This had been done.

b)    Within one month to make a symbolic payment of £250 to recognise the avoidable frustration and inconvenience caused.  The detail to facilitate this payment had been sought.

c)    Decide if and what planning enforcement action was warranted and progress any action in a reasonable time.  Detailed further assessment work on the alleged planning breach had continued.  It was envisaged, at this stage that the timeline for a decision as to whether enforcement action was lawful and warranted might be within the next several weeks.” 

d)    Provide a monthly update to the member of the public about progress.  This was ongoing while the case was still live.

It was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor M E Stephensonand:-

RESOLVED that Council notes the report (A.8), including the progress made with the agreed actions.