Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision not to take enforcement action against an alleged breach of planning control. Or about its decision to approve a planning application. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made either decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council:
• Failed to act against his neighbour’s property which Mr X says overhangs his property and is therefore a breach of planning control; and
• Granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend their home and make the breach of planning control worse, invade his privacy, encroach on his land and lead to parked cars encroaching on to the pavement.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains the Council refuses to act against a breach of planning control at his neighbour’s property. The Council confirms planning permission was granted in 1991 and the property registered for council tax in 1993. Therefore, even if building was unauthorised (which it says it is not), as it has been in place for thirty years, it is immune from planning enforcement action.
6. Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out the time limits within which Councils can take enforcement action. Development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken:
• Within four years of substantial completion, where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of operational development (building, engineering, mining, or other operations) in, on, over or under land; or
• Within four years, where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse; or
• Within ten years, for any other breach of planning control.
7. In view of the above I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.
8. Mr X also complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the neighbour to extend their property and convert their garage into living accommodation.
9. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role, as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision. I have seen no evidence the Council has failed to follow the above process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the information we have seen shows no evidence of fault in the process the Council followed leading to its response to his report of a breach of planning control. Or in its decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman