Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against his neighbour who erected decking without planning permission.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that his neighbour has erected decking which is visible from his house and has affected his amenity.
6. The Council Planning Officer visited the site and took photographs and discussed the matter wit the neighbour. The Planning Officer concluded that, whilst parts of the decking are in breach of Permitted Development, the loss of amenity caused would not warrant enforcement action. The assessment took into account the presence of trees which could provide screening. The Planning Officer concluded that the loss of amenity caused did not warrant enforcement action.
7. The planning enforcement process we expect is as follows. We expect councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to react. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.
8. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered whether there was a need for planning enforcement. The Council’s conclusion, that it was not expedient to do so was made without administrative fault and the Ombudsman cannot therefore question the merit of the decision.
9. Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman