Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against her neighbour for building an extension roof higher than the approved plans. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council allowing her neighbour to retain a higher roofline on an extension which is contrary to the approved plans. She says the view of the roof parapet is intrusive and makes it difficult to maintain their own extension due to the proximity with the boundary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mrs X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says she objected to a neighbour’s plans for an extension in 2019. The plans were subsequently approved. When the work was completed in 2020, she noticed the height of the roof was different to the approved plans and included a small parapet. Mrs X asked the Council to investigate the breach of planning approval and take enforcement action.
5. The Council inspected the works and measured the roof height. It says the parapet makes the roof height 20 centimetres higher than the approved drawings. The Council decided that there would not be any significant additional impact to residential or visual amenity than what would occur had the extension been built as approved. It decided not to take further enforcement action.

Analysis

6. Government guidance does not say that councils should take action against all unauthorised development, but a council should take action where serious harm to local public amenity is being caused. The decisive issue for the LPA should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the unauthorised use of land or buildings merit protection in the public interest.
7. In this case the Council decided not to exercise its power of planning enforcement because the breach and harm was too minor to warrant this. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman