Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained the Council has not taken enforcement action against his neighbour for a breach of planning control. Mr X says the unauthorised development creates unwanted shadowing in his garden and he is concerned his property may be damaged because of potential drainage issues.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and visited his neighbour’s property. It initially said there had not been a breach of planning control as the fence erected by Mr X’s neighbour was allowed under permitted development rights. However, Mr X provided additional information and the Council agreed that planning permission was needed for the fence. It invited Mr X’s neighbour to make a retrospective planning application to regularise the development. The Council did not receive a planning application. However, it decided not to take enforcement action as it said the impact of the unauthorised development was not significant enough to justify formal action.

7. Mr X disagrees and says the Council did not visit his property to properly assess the impact. But there was no requirement for the Council to visit Mr X’s home before deciding it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. Councils also do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control and it was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide formal action was not needed. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

8. Mr X says the Party Wall Act agreement with his neighbour said the fence would not exceed 1.85 metres. He has also raised concerns about potential damage to his property. But these will be private civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman