Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement action related to a neighbour’s annex. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council granted retrospective planning permission for a neighbour’s annex, despite the material used on the roof of the annex being unsuitable.
2. Mr X says that this has caused him stress and has been time consuming to deal with. He feels that the material used has led to a degradation of his view. Mr X would like the Council to take enforcement action against his neighbour, requiring them to change the current roof to a different material.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant as well as the Council’s responses to the complaint and planning documents.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
8. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers.
9. Mr X’s rear neighbour carried out building work which was not in line with the planning permission granted by the Council.
10. As a result, the neighbour applied for retrospective planning permission. The Council considered the application and granted permission. Therefore, the breaches of planning condition were regularised.
11. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision that the current roof material is acceptable and wants the Council to take enforcement action. However, it is our role to 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. In this case, the Council decided the breaches of planning conditions could be regularised through a retrospective planning application. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision; therefore, we cannot question it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman