Ombudsman rules out investigating council that decided not to take action over use of hotel to house asylum seekers

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has declined to investigate a complaint about North West Leicestershire Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement or legal action against a hotel owner after they contracted with national government for their premises to be used to house asylum seekers.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a resident (Mr X) who claimed the village in question had been affected immensely by the decision to allow a local hotel to be used in this way.

Mr X protested that North West Leicestershire incorrectly decided the hotel was not required to have planning permission to house asylum seekers, and took advice from legal experts who did not visit the site.

He further claimed that the council failed to address his points about the impact on the area, and failed to properly explain its decision.

The resident said the matter had caused divides between family and friends. He suggested that there had been incidents between village residents who disagreed on the matter, and between village and hotel residents, with the police being involved.

Mr X added that changes at the hotel had led to a loss of local business and employment, access to the gym and swimming pool for village residents, and changes to the appearance of the hotel.

The complainant wanted the council to require the hotel to follow the planning process so the impact on the area could be considered.

In its assessment the LGSCO said the council could only consider the change of the area’s character relating to material planning matters, not social or police matters. The planning issues the council could consider included increased noise or disturbance, or changes to the building’s appearance.

The Ombudsman said North West Leicestershire took legal advice on the circumstances which concluded the planning harms caused by national government’s arrangement with the hotel’s owners to use the premises to house asylum seekers did not give them grounds to take enforcement or legal action.

“The advisor’s role was not to visit and assess the site or wider local area, but to give advice on the legal and planning issues raised by the matter,” the report said.

It added that officers decided there had been no material planning change to the hotel which would support enforcement or other action. “That was a decision officers were entitled to make,” the Ombudsman said.

The LGSCO concluded that there was not enough evidence of fault in the council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation. “Officers took advice and have taken account of the relevant planning issues raised by the hotel’s change of business practice in reaching their decision not to enforce. They have explained to Mr X the matters they could and could not take into account when considering the planning issues raised by the matter, and the reasons for their decision. I realise Mr X disagrees with the council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.”

The Ombudsman said that even if there were fault by the council in its planning consideration, it would not investigate. “Mr X does not live in sight of or near the hotel. None of the material planning issues stemming from the current use of the hotel, such as the covered signage or increased security measures, cause Mr X a significant injustice to warrant us investigating. No other claimed injustices to Mr X or other residents caused by the impact of the hotel’s current use stem from a council decision or action,” it explained.

The LGSCO concluded that it would not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• there was not enough evidence of council fault to warrant an investigation; and
• the planning matters complained of did not cause such a significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify investigation.

Local Government Lawyer has approached North West Leicestershire District Council for comment.

Harry Rodd