Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his neighbour’s outbuilding and decision that it is permitted development. There is not enough fault in the Council’s planning process to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. A neighbour built an outbuilding in their garden, close to the boundary with Mr X’s garden. He complains the Council:
1. failed to fully investigate and assess the building;
2. incorrectly decided the building is ‘permitted development’, a development not requiring planning permission;
3. failed to properly investigate his complaint.
2. Mr X says the neighbour raised the ground level on their side of the fence, which is having an adverse impact on his boundary fence. He says the height of the building obscures the view from his house and garden, and the size and colour of it is an eyesore.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:

• do a full and proper investigation of his complaint;
• re-investigate the building, and take into account an attached patio;
• accept the building does not have a flat roof;
• accept the part of the building nearest his property is over 2.5m high, and that it requires planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, online maps and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We may only go behind a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in its process which, but for that fault, a different outcome would have been reached. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process on the neighbour’s building here to warrant us investigating. The Council visited the building to conduct measurements and its assessment. Officers determined the scale and location of the building meant it complied with the relevant legislation to be permitted development. They further considered the evidence gathered in response to Mr X’s concerns. Mr X disputes the methods the Council has used to take its measurements. But there is not enough evidence to show the Council’s assessment of the building was flawed in a way which would have altered its planning decision. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision that his neighbour’s building qualifies as permitted development. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. The Council has stated that even if the building as built were found to be over the permitted development height for its location, officers would not take enforcement action or require a planning application because they do not consider the building causes planning harm. So officers reconsidering the matter would be unlikely to lead to enforcement, or the Council seeking a planning application from the neighbour to regularise the building.
9. Mr X says the neighbour’s building is affecting his fence, causing him an injustice. Damage to private property by a building is not a material planning matter. If Mr X considers his neighbour has acted to cause damage to his fence, that would be a private civil matter between him and his neighbour. This would be the situation even if the outbuilding had required and received planning permission and the implementation of that permission had caused damage to others’ property.
10. Mr X’s other claimed injustices are the impact on his view from his property, and his dislike for the appearance of the building. These are not issues which can form part of an assessment of whether a building is permitted development. That process does not take account of the impact of a building on existing properties. Even if the Council had decided the building required planning permission, officers could not have considered these matters as part of that process because they are not material planning issues.
11. The outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint amount to the Council reinvestigating his complaint and reconsidering its decision that the neighbour’s building is permitted development. We cannot order councils to reinvestigate matters which they have already considered, and which have been the subject of an Ombudsman decision. We also cannot order councils to reconsider planning matters they have already decided. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks is a further reason for us not to investigate.
12. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his complaint. We will not investigate councils’ complaints processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to that complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process and decision-making to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks; and
• we do not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaint handling when we are not investigating the matters which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman