Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against her neighbour, officers not visiting the site before making the decision, and how it dealt with her correspondence and complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process affecting its decision to warrant an investigation. The matters complained of do not cause Ms X sufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives next to a property in a conservation area whose owner received conditional planning permission for a rear extension. In December 2022, she reported the neighbour to the Council for not complying with the planning conditions. Ms X complains the Council:
1. has failed to enforce against the neighbour for breaching the planning condition relating to the development’s materials and windows not matching those of the host property;
2. failed to visit the site before deciding not to enforce;
3. delayed in dealing with her concerns and complaint.
2. Ms X says the view of the neighbouring development from her property is atrocious and has severely affected her mental health. She says the lengthy dealings with the Council have caused her stress and distress. Ms X says its involvement and opinions expressed by some officers have made matters worse.
3. Ms X wants the Council to:
• improve its procedures and attitude to the public;
• tell her whether the neighbour can meet the planning conditions by changing the current materials and windows;
• explain to her why the planning conditions were there if it does not matter whether they are complied with if a development is not visible from the highway;
• always visit sites of reported planning breaches;
• accept when it is wrong and not maintain its position simply to save face.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))

5. 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

6. I considered information from Ms X, online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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. National government’s guidance on planning enforcement in the 2019 ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ says: ‘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 are not an appeal body. 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. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
9. In December 2022 Ms X reported to the Council that her neighbour had replaced upstairs timber windows with green metal ones and the paintwork on the extension had remained unfinished for two years, with unpainted render, different colours and cracks. In response to Ms X’s concerns about the neighbour’s extension not meeting the planning condition for the development’s materials to match those of the host property, Council officers considered her correspondence and photographs. The officer’s initial response was that they considered there was a planning breach, but they did not consider enforcement would be in the public interest or expedient because the extension was not visible from the highway. They determined the breach would have insufficient impact on surrounding property and the conservation area to warrant enforcement action. Ms X disagreed and pursued the matter. The Council considered further evidence and produced an ‘enforcement expediency report’ in July 2023 which did not alter its decision not to enforce.
10. There was delay in the Council responding to Ms X’s reports and issuing its enforcement decision as a report. But the Council assessed the evidence about the breach it received to make its decision, alongside the planning conditions. We note Ms X considers the Council should have visited the site to make its decision. But there is no requirement for a council to visit the site of a reported breach. It is for officers to determine whether a visit is required, or whether information received from the person reporting the breach along with file documents are sufficient for them to make their enforcement decision.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision‑making process which would have altered the outcome to warrant us investigating. We realise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. Even if there were fault in the Council’s process here which affected its enforcement decision, we would not investigate. The planning outcome from the Council’s decision not to enforce means Ms X has views of her neighbour’s development, which she describes as atrocious and affecting her mental health. Much of the development would not be visible to Ms X for most of the time while using her house or garden. In any event, there is no right in planning for someone to only have views from their property which they personally find acceptable. Ms X’s views of her neighbour’s development do not amount to such a significant personal injustice to her to warrant us investigating.
13. Ms X complains about the Council’s responses during the enforcement and complaint processes and their impacts on her. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate these aspects of the complaint.
14. The Council says it has visited Ms X’s neighbour’s property in October, prompted by her reporting in August 2023 that they had also relocated some ground floor windows, and are considering the matter. It is for officers to reach their decision on what action, if any, the Council should take in response to this issue. We cannot intervene in officers’ ongoing enforcement investigations. If Ms X disagrees with any future Council enforcement process and decision regarding the site, she may make a new complaint to the Council. Once the Council’s complaint process is exhausted, if she remains dissatisfied, she might bring a new complaint to this office.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process affecting its enforcement decision to warrant an investigation; and
• even if there has been such fault, the matters complained of do not cause her sufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman