My Office obtained a report from the Council and the Council's files were also examined in detail. In its report of 24 October 2006, the Council provided a detailed account of its actions on the case.
The Council indicated that in early 1998 a shed was built next door to the complainants. At first they made no complaint about the shed but when, in August 2000, they observed that a new business was being carried on creating noise and traffic, they complained to the Council. They alleged the shed had been let to a plant hire company which was engaged in commercial activity. The Council had already received a complaint relating to this matter in early August 2000 from another local resident. An inspection was carried out on 9 August 2000 and the report noted that the shed was built as an agricultural shed, was in excess of 300 square metres and would be unauthorised development. The shed was leased to the plant hire company as a storage yard and machine repair shed. A letter was issued to the developer (the owner of the site) and to the occupiers of the site on 16 August 2000 requesting them to cease the unauthorised use and to submit proposals for regularising the matter.
When no action appeared to have been taken, the complainants wrote to the Council again on 8 May 2001 and on 14 June 2001. They were advised by the Council on 6 July 2001 that a Warning Notice had been served in respect of the development. In their response of 12 July 2001 the complainants reminded the Council that the shed, which had no planning permission, was 45 feet long and 20 feet high at the apex and that they had fears that a small industrial estate could develop beside their house. A planning application by the plant hire company to retain the development was refused by the Council in September 2001.
On 10 February 2002, the complainants asked the Council what proceedings were being taken to demolish "this large building". On 25 February 2002, the Council explained that enforcement proceedings were being taken in relation to the unauthorised use of the land but that the existing shed may be considered exempt from planning permission if used for agricultural purposes only and that the Council had not taken any proceedings to have the shed demolished. In reply, the complainant disputed the use of the shed for agricultural purposes and alleged it was constructed too close to his property to qualify for exempted development status. The plant hire company vacated the premises in late February 2002. Later, in a letter of 13 March 2003, the complainants alleged that the shed was being used by the developer as a workshop and store for his building company, without planning permission.
Another application for planning permission was lodged with the Council in August 2003 by the developer for, among other things, a change of use of an existing agricultural shed to a builder's warehouse/store. Following refusal of permission by the Council in October 2003, the complainant asked the Council to set a date for the removal of the shed. A report dated 16 August 2004 recommended that legal proceedings be instituted as a matter of urgency. In November 2004, the Council sought details from the complainant concerning the use of the shed in 1998. He provided this information on 2 December 2004. The complainants phoned the Planning Office on 3 November 2005 and were informed that the Council may not be able to proceed with enforcement action because the development appeared to be in operation for more than seven years and, therefore, the Council was statute barred from taking enforcement action.
On 8 February 2007, my office wrote to the Council and asked:
a) how the Council allowed the seven year period to expire without initiating legal action against the developer, bearing in mind that the Council received numerous complaints about the matter, that it was never in doubt that the development was unauthorised and that it was informed in good time (i.e. within the seven year period) of the date the development commenced;
b) what redress the Council can now offer to the complainants;
c) what steps the Council had taken, or will take, to ensure that such a situation does not recur.
By letter dated 27 April 2007, the Council replied summarising the actions it took in relation to this complaint and stated that it did not intend to suggest any financial redress in this case. The Council also stated that it would endeavour to ensure that such a situation does not occur again by ensuring that such cases are monitored closely and reminders are included on officers’ personal computers to check such files to ensure that action is taken within the required timescales.
My office obtained all the Council's files on this case and carried out a detailed examination of them.
An analysis of the files showed, among other things, the following:
a) the number of inspections carried out (planning and environment) was approximately 17;
b) letters of complaint received, replies issued, letters received from other 3rd parties, replies issued, numbered about 82;
c) actions generated internally (memos, e-mails, other contacts with third parties) amounted to at least 68;
d) the number of times that a member of management (County Secretary, Senior Executive Officer, Senior Executive Engineer, Director of Services, County Manager) was informed of the case by letter, e-mail or phone call, or had the file otherwise referred to him, within the seven year period, was at least 19;
e) there were periods of inactivity when no action took place, other than receiving correspondence from complainants:
21/08/00 to 04/01/01 = 20 weeks
05/01/01 to 04/07/01 = 26 weeks
20/06/02 to 03/06/03 = 49 weeks
17/12/03 to 16/08/04 = 34 weeks
02/12/04 to 06/12/05 = 52 weeks
Total = 181 weeks