Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action against her neighbour’s unauthorised shed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Even if there were such fault, the matter does not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next door to a house where the owner has installed a shed next to her driveway. The shed extends beyond the neighbouring property’s front elevation. The neighbour did not apply for planning permission.
2. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to require the removal of the shed despite it not qualifying as ‘permitted development’. She says the shed is tall and prominent so is an eyesore, gives the feeling of her driveway being closed in and looks odd within its surroundings. Mrs X wants the Council to ask the neighbour to move the shed so it does not sit beyond the front elevation of their house.

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 from Mrs X, online images of the location, 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 any 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.’ Councils acting as planning authorities have different options to respond to planning control breaches, from taking no formal action through to issuing an Enforcement Notice.
7. 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.
8. In response to Mrs X’s concerns about the shed, the Council considered its size, scale and location. Officers decided the shed would not have been allowed under ‘permitted development’ criteria, which allow for some developments without the need for planning permission. Officers determined the shed was a planning breach and should have been the subject of a planning application. But after assessment of the information gathered, they decided the structure and any planning harms it caused to the host property, neighbouring properties or the surrounding area did not warrant them taking enforcement action. Councils cannot force someone to make a planning application. But officers advised Mrs X that if the neighbour did apply for permission, it would likely be granted, so the shed would likely remain in its current location.
9. The process the Council followed aligns with national government guidance on enforcement. Officers investigated and collected relevant information to inform their decision not to enforce, and also when making the decision that if the identified breach is not regularised there would be insufficient planning harm reasons to make it expedient for the Council to enforce. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if there were Council fault which resulted in the shed remaining, we would not investigate. Online images of the street show there have been tall fences in the same location as the shed for many years. The walls of the shed have replaced the fence panels. The shed is slightly taller than the fence, but the difference in height of the structure next to Mrs X’s driveway is not such that it causes significant additional planning impact. Overshadowing or massing effects caused to a driveway by a development would not be considered a significant planning harm or loss of amenity. Mrs X’s property also has no direct views of the shed from its main windows. We understand Mrs X considers the shed an eyesore and not in keeping with its surroundings. But no property owner has a right within planning law to only have views from their property which they find entirely pleasing. Even if there had been fault in the Council’s enforcement process, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the outcome to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision‑making process to warrant us investigating; and
• even if there were Council fault, the matter does not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman