Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to respond properly to his report about an unauthorised veranda at his neighbour’s property. Mr C says he suffers nuisance and noise from his neighbour’s dogs as a result. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council failed to respond properly to his report about an unauthorised veranda at his neighbour’s property. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault he suffers from nuisance and noise from his neighbour’s dogs.
2. Mr C also complained about the way the Council’s Environmental Health team responded to his reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s dogs.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Mr C complains the Council failed to respond properly to his report about an unauthorised veranda at his neighbour’s property. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault he suffers from nuisance and noise from his neighbour’s dogs.
4. The final section of this statement contains my reason(s) for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C after removing third party details. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

9. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary.
10. Section171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) defines a breach of planning control as:

• the carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.

11. Where the breach involves carrying out development without permission, the authority may serve an Enforcement Notice if it is expedient to do so. It is for the planning authority to decide whether it is expedient to take action.
12. Section 171B of the Act sets out the time limits within which Councils can take enforcement action. Development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken:

• within four years of substantial completion, where there has been a breach of planning control consisting of the carrying out without planning permission of operational development in, on, over or under land;
• within four years, where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house;
• within ten years, for any other breach of planning control.

Key events

13. Mr C contacted the Council about a veranda at his neighbour’s property to ask if it had planning permission at the end of May 2019. The Council passed Mr C’s query to its planning enforcement team at the beginning of June.
14. The Council wrote to Mr C in early June to say it would investigate the matter and revert to him in due course.
15. The Council wrote to Mr C’s neighbour about the alleged unauthorised development in early June. The owner advised the veranda was already in place when he bought the property in 2015.
16. The Council visited the site in mid-June and has provided the notes and photographs from this visit.
17. The Council has provided evidence it considered information from Mr C’s neighbour, the relevant planning history and property sale history in reaching its view the veranda had been in place for more than four years.
18. The Council wrote to Mr C towards the end of June to confirm it had visited his neighbour’s property and confirmed the veranda would have required planning permission. However, the Council further explained that it was satisfied the veranda had been in place for more than four years which meant it was immune from enforcement action. The Council confirmed in these circumstances it would not take any further action.

My consideration

19. The Council responded quickly to Mr C’s report about his neighbour’s veranda. The Council has provided evidence it contacted Mr C’s neighbour, visited the site and properly considered all the relevant information in reaching its view the veranda although unauthorised was immune from enforcement action. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

21. I have not investigated the way the Council’s Environmental Health team has responded to Mr C’s reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour’s dogs. This is because this issue had not completed the Council’s complaint procedure.
22. I have explained to Mr C that if he remained troubled by noise from his neighbour’s dog, he would need to report this again to the Council’s Environmental Health team. If he was unhappy with its response, he could make a formal complaint to the Council. It would be open to Mr C to make a new complaint to the Ombudsman about this issue if he remained unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s complaint procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman