Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not using its planning enforcement powers against an outbuilding built next to a property he owns, and not taking his concerns seriously. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making process, nor in how officers investigated his concerns, to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns a property with a neighbour who has built an outbuilding in their garden. He complains the Council:
1. has not used its enforcement powers against a breach of planning control caused by the outbuilding;
2. has not taken his concerns seriously.
2. Mr X wants the Council to use its enforcement powers to make the neighbour lower the height of the outbuilding, to be in line with the Permitted Development rights of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Planning enforcement is a discretionary power held by local planning authorities. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decisions on whether to use their powers. National government advises authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where there is significant harm caused by an identified planning breach.
8. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council visited the site and assessed the outbuilding. Officers confirmed that given its location it was about 20 centimetres higher than permitted under the terms of the GPDO. They concluded this breach of planning control did not warrant enforcement action. They took the view that it was not expedient to pursue the height breach on the evidence before them because it caused insufficient planning harm to warrant enforcement. On receiving Mr X’s complaint, another officer visited the site.
9. Officers gathered and assessed the relevant information and applied government guidance to inform their decision not to enforce against the planning breach here. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement process to warrant investigation. We recognise Mr 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. We note Mr X considers the Council did not properly consider and investigate his concerns. In its correspondence, the Council sets out the actions and timescale of its investigation into the matters he raised. Officers took Mr X’s report and complaint seriously and considered it using its planning enforcement and complaint processes. We recognise the Council has made decisions with which Mr X does not agree. But that does not mean there has been fault in the Council’s processes. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s reports regarding the outbuilding to justify us investigating.
11. The outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to enforce and to get the outbuilding reduced in height. We cannot order councils to use their enforcement powers. That we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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 investigation; and
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in how officers investigated his concerns, to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman