Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council decided not to take formal enforcement action against her neighbour for building an extension without planning permission. The Council was at fault for delays in its complaint response. This caused Ms X frustration. The Council has suitably remedied that injustice by apologising to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her concerns that her neighbour built an extension without planning permission. She also complained about the Council's complaint handling.
2. Ms X said the extension appears unsafe, overlooks her property and affects the resell value of her home. She said the Council's handling of the matter caused her frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. 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

5. I have considered:
• all the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. Not all development requires planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
8. If development takes place without the necessary planning permission, there will be a breach of planning control. When a council receives an allegation of a breach, we expect it to consider the allegation and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to react. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.
9. Councils may choose to take informal action, formal action or no action at all. Government guidance says, “Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 58).
10. The Council has a two stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to both stages in 20 working days and tell the complainant if its response will take longer.

What happened

11. Ms X contacted the Council to say she thought her neighbour’s extension was in breach of planning control. The Council visited the neighbour and confirmed the extension was slightly longer than allowed under permitted development and was therefore a breach of planning control.
12. The Council told the neighbour they needed to either apply for planning permission, reduce the length of the extension, or remove it.
13. The neighbour initially said they would reduce the length of the extension and later confirmed they had done so. The Council visited and found they had not.
14. The Council considered whether it should take enforcement action. It assessed the seriousness of the breach and noted:
• it was less than a metre longer than allowed under the regulations for permitted development; and
• the neighbour had suggested they would detach the extension from the main building. If they did that, the extension would become an outbuilding and so would not be a breach of planning control.
15. The Council also considered mitigating factors like screening on the property boundary. It decided formal enforcement would not be a proportionate use of its powers as the breach did not cause significant harm, and closed the case.

Complaint

16. Ms X was unhappy with the Council's decision and complained about it. The Council did not respond for 9 months. It apologised for the delay and said it was due to a change in management and issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It explained its decision not to take formal enforcement was discretionary and it did not think enforcement was proportionate in this case. It was satisfied the decision was made in accordance with relevant policies. It confirmed it would not consider Ms X’s complaint at its second stage because she had already complained to the Ombudsman.
17. Ms X responded to say she was unhappy the Council had not answered her question about the screening between the properties or about whether the size of the extension relative to the garden also constituted a breach of planning control.

My findings

18. The Ombudsman cannot question a council's decision if it is made without fault. The Council carried out an investigation into Ms X’s concern about the neighbour’s extension. It visited the site and decided there had been a breach of planning control. It took informal action to try and resolve the breach. After the Council confirmed the neighbour had not taken any action, it considered whether the breach constituted planning harm. It assessed the relevant factors and decided enforcement was not proportionate. There was no fault in how the Council came to its decision so I cannot question it.
19. Ms X says the Council took too long to investigate her concerns. There was ten months between when Ms X first reported the breach and when the Council closed the case. Enforcement investigations can be lengthy, particularly where those responsible for breaches do not fully engage with the process, as in this case. The delays that occurred were not caused by the Council, so it was not at fault.
20. The Council's complaint response was significantly delayed. This was not in line with its policy and was fault. The Council apologised to Ms X in its complaint response and explained the reason for the delay. This remedies the frustration the delay caused Ms X.
21. Ms X feels the Council's response did not answer her complaint fully. The Ombudsman does not expect councils to respond to every part of someone’s complaint. It is sufficient if they address the key points. I am satisfied the Council did so. It was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. I found evidence of fault by the Council, which it has already remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman