Summary: Mr X complained about a Council planning decision for an extension on his neighbours, Y’s, land. Mr X said Y’s extension had not been built in accordance with the approved plans and the Council had delayed taking enforcement action. We have ended this investigation because Y submitted a retrospective planning application and it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Mr X or any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a Council’s planning decision for an extension on his neighbour, Y’s. land. Mr X said Y’s extension had not been built in accordance with the approved plans and the Council had delayed taking enforcement action. Mr X said this affected his residential amenity and could cause possible surface water flooding. Mr X also complained about poor complaints handling which he said caused him avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
4. Mr X initially complained to us in September 2024 about events starting in Spring 2023. He complained again in November 2024 when the Council had issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate events going back to Spring 2023 because Mr X could have complained to us sooner.
5. In response to a previous draft of this decision Mr X told me he could not have complained earlier because the Council took too long to respond and observe the height of the extension which was still being built. Mr X did not provide any evidence what he wanted to be investigated before September 2023. I have therefore considered events between September 2023 and Spring 2025 when a retrospective planning application was submitted to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council and discussed the complaint with a Council enforcement officer.
7. I considered documents from the Council’s planning files, including the plans, the case officer’s report and enforcement documents. I also considered the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations say they should not.
10. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
11. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.

Planning enforcement

12. Planning enforcement is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not act at all. The planning enforcement process we expect is for councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider these issues. It is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.

What happened

13. Several years ago, Mr X’s next-door neighbour, Y, applied for planning permission for a single storey front, side and rear extension to their property. Before a decision on the application was made, the Council’s planning case officer wrote a report. The Council approved the application with conditions.
14. In Autumn 2023 Mr X completed a Council enforcement form and said Y’s extension had not been built in accordance with the agreed plans. He said the extension was too high and it would exceed three metres, and he had amenity concerns.
15. The next month a Council enforcement officer, Officer 1 undertook a site visit when the building works were still being completed. Officer 1 took photographs and measured the extension. The flat roof extension was under three metres in height. Officer 1 also considered the side window and its location. Officer 1 wrote to Y and asked them to submit further plans through a retrospective planning application to vary the conditions to the approved planning permission. No planning application was submitted by Y. In late 2023 Mr X raised his concerns again with Officer 1 and a Council planning officer.
16. A few months later Y’s extension was completed. Over the next few months Officer 1 carried out a site visit and spoke to Y on the telephone. Y said they would submit a planning application but no application was submitted.
17. In Autumn 2024, Mr X remained unhappy with the side window, the height of Y’s extension, surface water concerns and the Council’s timeliness. The Council wrote to Mr X with a stage 1 and stage 2 response which did not uphold his complaints. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.
18. I spoke to Officer 1 and they said they undertook an enforcement visit in early 2025. Officer 1 asked Y to submit a planning application to show plans and drawings ‘as built’. The application was validated in Spring 2025 and the retrospective application is due to be determined in Summer 2025. The Council said the discharge of surface water was compliant with building Regulations 2010 and it did not control discharge from patios and driveways.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
20. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
21. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
22. I have not investigated this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• the Council considered Mr X’s enforcement concerns and investigated the situation on site. It asked Y to submit a retrospective application which Y did in 2025. This is the planning enforcement process we would expect and further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or lead to a different outcome.
• the Council decided the surface water drainage arrangements were satisfactory because they complied with building regulations. If a landowner has drainage concerns caused by their neighbour’s actions, this is a civil matter to be resolved in the courts, not by the Council or the Ombudsman.
• the Council decided to consider Mr X’s concerns through its planning enforcement process, but not through its corporate complaints process. This was a judgement it was entitled to make.
• the Council decided to consider the extension ‘as built’ in comparison to the approved plans by accepting a retrospective planning application. This was a judgement it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have ended my investigation because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Mr X or any other meaningful outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman