Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for breaching a planning condition regarding window blinds. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The planning outcome does not cause a sufficiently significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a property which was the subject of a granted planning permission for new extensions. One of the planning conditions was for the fitting of blackout blinds to windows. Mr X complains the Council has not enforced against the property’s owner for not fitting all the blinds required under the planning condition.
2. Mr X says this is causing light pollution in the area, affecting wildlife and the night sky, is damaging to the local community and harassing to neighbours. He wants the Council to take responsibility and enforce the condition. If the owner does not fit the blinds, Mr X wants the Council to do it then bill them for the work. Alternatively, he wants officers to pursue an enforcement case through the courts to ensure the planning condition is met.

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; 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))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where they identify or receive a report they decide is a planning control breach. They are required to investigate claimed breaches, but enforcement is discretionary. It is for the authority to decide whether it is expedient to use its enforcement powers in each case.
7. National government’s guidance on planning enforcement in the 2019 ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ says: ‘Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.’ So councils acting as planning authorities have different options to respond to planning control breaches, from taking no formal action to issuing an Enforcement Notice.
8. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making process officers have followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process councils have followed when making their decision.
9. The planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s property included a condition requiring the applicant to submit details of the blackout blinds they would fit to the specified windows. They provided this information during the planning process, so met that part of the condition. The condition did not need them to evidence the fitting of the blinds but did require them to be used during hours of darkness, to prevent light pollution and protect night skies and local wildlife.
10. In response to Mr X’s report about the blinds, the Council’s officers contacted the applicant for them to give evidence that all of them had been installed. Officers found one blind to the top part of one side window had not been fitted.
11. Officers’ complaint response indicates they considered the specific wording of the blinds condition. They have now asked the applicant to install the missing blind and tell them when it has been done. Officers have taken the view that they have insufficient evidence of a deliberate breach of the condition and have noted national government guidance requires its Council to resolve issues where possible instead of enforcing, and have decided enforcement action is not expedient. Officers gathered the relevant information to inform that discretionary decision not to enforce and applied the terms of the planning condition. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to justify us investigating. We realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. In any event, even if there were fault in the Council’s process here, we would not investigate. The plans show small gable end windows in the neighbouring property’s side elevations. The level of impact of the top part of one of those windows not being fitted with a blind on Mr X or his property’s amenity, or on the wider night sky and local wildlife, does not amount to such a significant personal injustice that an investigation is warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision‑making process to warrant an investigation; and
• the planning outcome does not cause such a significant level of impact on Mr X, his property, the night sky or local wildlife, to amount to a sufficient personal injustice warranting an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman