Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against her neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council has not taken action against her neighbour who has made alterations to the rear of his property without planning permission. She said the alterations have removed any privacy she had, made her feel unsafe and have reduced the value of her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X lives next door to a gym. The rear door to the gym is next to the entrance to her property. The rear door had previously only been used as an emergency exit. More recently, the gym owner replaced the old wooden sliding door with a UPVC window and door. Ms X said the gym now uses this rear entrance more frequently and people park in her parking space and congregate outside her property. She says the noise is excessive and she feels unsafe.
8. The Council said that the external alterations require planning permission. This is because the use of a gym has no permitted development rights, and the property is within a conservation area. The Council requested the gym owner submit a retrospective planning application. He did not do this.
9. The Council said it granted planning permission for the change of use to a gym in 2009. The approved plans included a door to the rear of the property with no restrictions regarding its level of use. It said this means any enforcement action would not result in the removal of the door or the restrictions of its use. The Council said on balance there is no public interest for it pursuing enforcement action against the gym owner.
10. Enforcement action is discretionary, and the Council is entitled to make the decision not to pursue it. We cannot question this decision if it was made properly, and the Council can demonstrate that it considered the relevant factors.
11. I have seen evidence the Council considered Ms X’s report of a breach of planning and made a considered decision not to pursue enforcement action. An investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman