Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action in respect of a neighbouring extension built without planning permission which he says affects his privacy. The Council considered the impact of the extension on Mr X’s residential amenity and used its professional judgement to decide enforcement action is not expedient. There is no fault in how the Council reached that decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take action in respect of a neighbouring extension built without planning permission.
2. Mr X says he has suffered stress as a result of the unauthorised development and says he had no opportunity to raise objections regarding how the extension affects his residential amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2020 saying his neighbour had erected an extension without planning permission. He said the extension was 4.2 metres long and that the ground had been raised by around a foot. Mr X said the neighbour could now see into his kitchen, dining room and garden.
7. The Council wrote to Mr X on 27 October saying it considered the development to be acceptable should an application be submitted. It said that Government Guidance advises that enforcement action should be proportionate to the breach of planning control to which it relates and formal action taken only when it is expedient to do so. It said based on the fact the development is acceptable in planning terms and would likely be granted planning permission should an application be submitted, no further action is required and the case is now closed.
8. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response and so sent some photographs showing the development from his property. Mr X thought the extension looked too high and asked the Council if it had checked the height. The Council considered the photographs and remained of the view any application would probably be granted planning permission. It did not consider the height would impact on Mr X in terms of overshadowing or being overbearing given it is a single storey extension.

Analysis

9. A planning authority may take enforcement where there has been a breach of planning control but this enforcement action is discretionary. When deciding whether it is expedient to take enforcement action, the planning authority will wish to take account a number of factors including national and local planning policies, permitted development rights, whether the development is likely to be granted planning permission and the need to achieve a balance between the protection of amenity and permitting development which is acceptable.
10. I am satisfied the Council gave proper consideration to this breach of planning control and whether to take enforcement action. While it did not visit the site due to COVID-19, it assessed other available evidence including photographs and measurements provided by Mr X, online maps and ariel photographs.
11. Once it determined there was a breach of planning control, it then considered whether it was expedient to take enforcement action. In reaching a view the extension was acceptable and likely to be granted planning permission if an application were made, it took account of the fact it was single storey, that there was a two metre high fence on the boundary and a trellis on top of the fence obscuring the high level windows. The Council did not consider there was significant enough harm to warrant formal enforcement action.
12. I note Mr X’s comments about how this has impacted on him and that it has caused stress. However, I cannot conclude that any impact on Mr X is because of fault by the Council. The Council has properly considered the situation and used its professional judgement to decide formal enforcement action is not expedient. Mr X may disagree with this decision but as there is no fault in the process leading to this decision, I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman