Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and enforcement matters in relation to development at a property close to Ms X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s response to unauthorised development by her neighbour and its failure to issue a stop notice to halt the work taking place. She says it gave her conflicting information about whether one aspect of the development required planning permission and that this misinformation led directly to an unauthorised building being built behind her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about a neighbour’s unauthorised development taking place close to her property and asked that it take action to issue a notice to stop the work. The Council considered matters but decided instead to seek a retrospective planning application from the neighbour to regularise the development for which permission was subsequently granted.
7. While Ms X may be disappointed with the decisions taken by the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions councils have taken if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
8. The Council decided it was not expedient in this case to issue a stop notice which is used in situations where a breach of planning control is causing serious or irreparable harm and immediate action is necessary. It apologised for the inconsistent information given to Ms X regarding the need for planning permission for one aspect of the development. It acknowledged the retrospective application should have more explicitly included reference to this particular aspect of the work but said that as the officer report was clear it had been considered acceptable, it would not seek a retrospective application. These are decisions the Council is entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected them.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman