Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not properly monitored how a development next to his house has been constructed and hasn’t responded to his questions. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council refusing to respond properly to his questions about his neighbour’s project to demolition and rebuild a house. He has concerns about how the project is being monitored by building control and says it has not been built in accordance with planning permission.
2. Mr B says as a result the house next door is too large and has reduced the amount of light reaching his kitchen. He says the whole development has caused him significant stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mr B about his complaint and considered the information he has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to his complaint and its response to my enquiries.
6. I gave the Council and Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

What happened

8. Mr B lives next door to a property which is undergoing redevelopment. Mr B expressed concerns to the Council about the adequacy of the building work. The Council investigated Mr B’s concerns and inspected the site.
9. The developer applied for full planning permission in December 2018. Mr B objected to the planning application. Planning permission for the development was granted.
10. Mr B expressed further concerns about breaches of planning permission. The Council made two site inspections in April and June 2019 in response to Mr B’s concerns.
11. Mr B complained to the Council that there were breaches of planning permission.

Analysis

12. The Ombudsman only looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
13. Mr B’s complaint is partly based on permitted development rules. As the development next door to him has full planning permission, these rules are not relevant.
14. The council made two site visits to the development next to Mr B and took measurements of the building. Mr B says there is insufficient evidence the site visits were made. I have seen a copy of the measurements taken during the first inspection. I have seen an extract from an email sent about the second inspection. On the balance of probabilities I consider the Council made two site inspections. It considered whether or not to take enforcement action. The Council found that a technical breach of planning permission had occurred but did not consider this resulted in a negative impact on Mr B’s amenity. The Council decided not to take enforcement action. This is not fault by the Council.
15. The developer has employed a private approved inspector. The Council have advised Mr B that issues of building control are therefore not its responsibility and that any potential future damage will be a civil matter. Mr B has contacted the inspector who confirmed that it considers the development conforms to Building Regulations. This is not fault by the Council.
16. The Council emailed Mr B in April 2019 after its first site inspection to update him about the outcome. I have not seen evidence to show the Council told Mr B the outcome of its second site inspection in June 2019.
17. The Council treated Mr B’s concerns as a formal complaint on 1 May 2019. It responded at the initial and review stages in accordance with its complaints procedure. As part of its complaint response the Council explained how it had considered Mr B’s concerns including how it made the site visits. This is not fault by the Council.
18. Mr B remains unhappy about the development next door to him. I am satisfied there is no procedural fault by the Council. I cannot consider the merits of the decision about whether the building confirms to the approved plans and whether any enforcement action should be taken. This is a matter for the Council.
19. Mr B has expressed further concerns about the development to the Council. The Council is looking into Mr B’s concerns. If he remains unhappy about the outcome he may make a further complaint to the Council about this.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was no fault by the Council about how it dealt with concerns about the development of a property next to Mr B’s home.
21. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman