Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights are subject to limitations and exclusions, but when a proposal falls within the parameters of development allowed by the Order it will not require planning permission; the Council therefore has no basis to refuse it.
6. Although permitted development does not require planning permission a person may apply to the local planning authority for a certificate of lawful development (CLD) for their proposal. An application for a CLD determines whether the development proposed is permitted or whether it requires planning permission. If the proposal is permitted development, and if the applicant carries out the development in accordance with the approved plans, the Council cannot stop it. If an applicant submits plans which suggest the proposal is permitted development but then carries out work which is not allowed, the Council could investigate as a possible breach of planning control.
7. Mrs X’s neighbour, Mr Y, applied for a CLD for a loft conversion with a dormer looking out over his back garden. The Council reviewed the application and decided the proposal did not require planning permission. But Mrs X says the dormer impacts on her privacy and complains Mr Y has installed a ‘juliette balcony’ in the dormer rather than a standard window. She is also unhappy she was not consulted on the CLD application and that the Council did not consider the impact of the proposal on her privacy.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mrs X’s concerns stem primarily from her belief that the juliette balcony is not permitted development and that the Council should have consulted her on the original proposal. But the Council’s decision is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
9. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 limits the installation of side-facing windows but it does not impose any restriction on openings facing the rear. While Mr Y’s application showed a window and he has installed glazed doors, the Council has explained this does not require planning permission and the difference between the two on Mrs X’s privacy is negligible.
10. Only applications for permitted development under the Government’s “larger home extension” scheme allows for neighbour consultation and that does not apply in this case. The Council could not therefore consult Mrs X or refuse to grant a CLD due to the impact of the development on her privacy. The proposal put to the Council amounted to permitted development and the authority to carry it out stems from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and not the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman