Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development at the property of Ms X’s neighbour. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that despite the Council refusing her neighbour’s retrospective planning application to regularise unauthorised development at the property, it has told her it will not take enforcement action to have the works removed.

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 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. (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, including the Council’s 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 unauthorised development taking place at her neighbour’s property which she said was affecting her amenity.
7. The Council investigated and found that part of the work was permitted development so that her neighbour did not have to apply for planning permission. With regard to other work carried out, the Council decided planning permission was required and sought and received a retrospective planning application to regularise the work. The Council decided to refuse permission.
8. Having refused permission, the Council then had to decide whether it was expedient to take enforcement action against the unauthorised work. It decided that as the existing street scene had a number of similar examples of such development, the work was not considered harmful enough to warrant formal enforcement action and it informed Ms X of its decision.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants do not agree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
10. In this case, while the Council had decided there was unauthorised development which required planning permission, it did not consider the works to be so harmful that enforcement action was required. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and while Ms X may be unhappy with it, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman