Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control at the house next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control at the property next to his home.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council refused a retrospective planning permission to regularise a breach of planning control at the property next to his home. The main departures from the approved plans are:
• An increase in height of the main house from 7.6m to 8.5m.
• An increase in height and width of the two-storey side extension next to Mr X’s home.
• Changes to the design and size of the front dormer windows.
• Flat roof rear dormer windows replacing the existing rear pitched roof dormers.
• Rooflights inserted to rear roof-space.
• Changes to the first-floor side/rear elevation boundary with Mr X’s home.
• A gap of about 800mm between the rear wall of the main house and extensions along boundary with Ms X’s home.
• Lowering the ground floor.
6. The Council’s reasons for refusing the application were:
• The rear dormer windows would lead to overlooking and loss of privacy.
• The scale of the development is out of scale with the existing house and dominates the street scene.
7. The Council then considered the breach of planning control which exists because of the refusal of the retrospective application.
8. The Council noted the owner has installed obscured glazed windows in the rear dormers. These windows also have restricted openings and serve non habitable rooms. The Council considers these changes overcome the issue of overlooking and has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action.
9. The remaining reasons for refusal were about the scale and mass of the built development. The Council can only consider enforcing against the part of the build which breaches planning control. It says Officers have visited the site and assessed the differences between what has been built and what has planning permission. It has decided that the differences are noticeable. But it considers they are not so significant as to warrant the issuing of an enforcement notice and the part demolition of the property.
10. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal right against the Council’s decision that it is not expedient to take enforcement action. Our role is to review the process by which the Council reached its decision.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. In reaching this view I have considered:
• It is for the Council to decide whether to take enforcement action.
• The Council has visited the site and compared what has been built with the approved plans.

This is the action we would expect the Council to take before making a decision on enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the breach of planning control and decided not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman