Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that there is no breach of planning control at the property next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X complains the Council has allowed his neighbour to:
• install a window which opens 180 onto a joint path
• install a pipe which emits water onto a joint path
• to move a central post in the joint path onto Mr X’s property; and
• install external insulation which has reduced the width of the joint path
2. Mr X says the Council did not allow him to install external insulation or a window in his converted garage. He wants to his neighbour to be instructed to:
• remove the insulation
• remove the window
• remove the pipe and
• reinstate the post in the middle of the path.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
   (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted Mr X’s neighbour planning permission to develop their property including:
• converting their garage to a habitable room
• a single storey front extension a rear dormer,
• front rooflights and changes to ground floor rear flank wall and additional windows. This includes two side windows which are obscured glazed and opening at 1.6 metres above floor level.
7. Mr X reported breaches of planning control, in particular he says the external insulation has narrowed the shared path.
8. A Council officer visited site. They measured insulation at five centimetres which had no impact on shared path. The Council advised Mr X there is no breach of planning control by the neighbour. It also confirmed external insulation is permitted development.
9. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the unauthorised use of the site. Our role is to review the process by which the Council reached its decision.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. I am mindful the Council has visited the site, considered Mr X’s complaint, and provided an explanation for its decision. Also, issues such as the location of the post in the shared path are civil matters and not a matter for the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because here is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his complaint and its decision there is no breach of planning control at his neighbour’s property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman