Summary: Mrs D complains the Council failed to take enforcement action for alleged planning breaches by a neighbour. We have not found any evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council has failed to take enforcement action for planning breaches by her neighbour.
2. She also refers to party wall issues, potential damage caused to her property by her neighbour, noise and waste being burnt and obstruction of the footpath/ highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated whether the Council failed to take enforcement action for alleged planning breaches.
7. I have not investigated the other parts of Mrs D’s case. I advised her at the outset of the investigation that party wall issues and potential damage to property caused by a neighbour are civil matters and not for the Council to consider. They can be pursued in the courts. In addition, the Planning Team, who are the focus of this investigation, are not responsible for waste or noise matters as reported by Mrs D. Instead, she would need to complain to the Environmental Health Team. Furthermore, obstruction of the footpath/ highway is not for the Planning Team to consider, and she would need to pursue her case with the Highways Team. I note the Council has previously advised Mrs D about these routes to take her case forward. Mrs D also refers to recent reports about enforcement matters (including windows and doors not being built in line with approved plans). These are still being considered by the Council and so do not form part of my investigation. Once the Council has a reached a decision on those matters Mrs D has the option to pursue a new complaint with the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the information provided by Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response and supporting documentation.
9. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. In October 2022 Mrs D complained to the Council’s Planning Team that her neighbour was carrying out building works (landscaping) without permission. A Planning Officer advised Mrs D about Party Wall issues and what aspects of her case were within the Council’s remit. He was able to determine there was an issue at the neighbouring property without requiring a site visit. On 13 October he sent the neighbour a formal warning letter explaining the works needed planning permission or could face enforcement action. On 6 December the Council received a planning application from the neighbour. The Council refused the application at the end of January 2023 because insufficient information had been provided.
11. In February Mrs D complained to the Council about another alleged planning breach relating to an extension at the neighbouring property. A second planning enforcement case was opened. The Planning Officer contacted the neighbour for additional information and sought clarification from Mrs D. On 20 March the Planning Officer told Mrs D that, based on the evidence available, there was no breach of planning control. He explained the extension had been built to the approved height. On the plans there was an area that was clearly a wall but had been shown as tiled like the roof. The Council found there had been no material change from the plans to the ‘as-built’ property.
12. On 13 April the Council received a new planning application for the neighbouring property. This was approved, after consultation, in June. The Planning Officer’s report details how the application was considered and why it was acceptable. The Council closed the initial planning enforcement case because planning permission had been granted.
13. In June Mrs D complained to the Council about further alleged planning breaches. These matters are still under investigation by the Council and do not form part of my investigation.

What should have happened

14. When the Council receives a complaint about alleged planning breaches the Planning Team will carry out an initial assessment to see if the case requires further consideration. If a planning breach is identified the case is allocated to a Planning Officer for investigation. They will assess the evidence and decide whether enforcement action is required. Under S.73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if the Council considers a planning breach will result in little or no harm it can request a retrospective planning application or remedial works.
15. Where the Council finds a difference between approved plans and the as-built development an Officer should take account of S.96a(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and determine if the change is material. If they find any changes are immaterial then there is no breach of planning control. They should notify the complainant.

Was there fault by the Council

16. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
17. Mrs D says the Council has failed to take action against her neighbour for breaches of planning control. The evidence shows me the Council has considered her reports in line with procedures. After contact in October 2022 the Council found there was a breach which was remedied by the receipt of a planning application. A Planning Officer also explained to Mrs D why her second enforcement complaint was not upheld and detailed why there was no breach. I appreciate that Mrs D may not accept the Council’s decisions, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mrs D disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman