Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision not to take formal enforcement action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with the seven principles of public life (known as the Nolan principles) in dealing with his planning enforcement complaint about his neighbour’s garden structure. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action against his neighbour and wants the Council to act to ensure the structure complies with ‘permitted development’ rules.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’.
5. Permitted development allows a homeowner, in certain circumstances, to erect a structure up to 2.5m tall, within 2m of their property boundary. If a structure is more than 2m from the boundary it may be built taller.
6. Mr X contacted the Council in 2024 because his neighbour had built a structure more than 2.5m in height, within 2m of their shared boundary. The Council investigated and confirmed the structure exceeded the permitted height. It says it gave the neighbour three options- to move the structure more than 2m from the boundary, reduce the height to 2.5m or apply for planning permission to retain the structure as-built. The neighbour reduced the height of the structure but it remains more than 2.5m tall and within 2m of the boundary. Mr X believes the Council should take formal enforcement action, making the point that the neighbour failed to comply with its instructions and that its actions should be consistent with the options it gave them.
7. The Council has however closed the case, confirming that although the structure exceeds the height allowed as permitted development it would not be reasonable, proportionate or expedient to take formal action as it considers the structure’s impact is acceptable. Mr X disagrees with this decision.
8. Mr X further says his neighbour told him that the Council advised it would not take action if they reduced the height of the structure to a level which remained taller than the 2.5m allowed as permitted development. But the Council disputes this and says it has no records to show it is correct.
9. Enforcement action is discretionary and it is not for us to question the Council’s decision that it is not warranted in this case. The Council has provided evidence of its measurements and while Mr X disagrees with them, we would not visit the site to take our own measurements to confirm if they are inaccurate. The difference he claims is in any event so minor that we could not say it affects the Council’s decision.
10. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the advice he says the Council gave his neighbour but we cannot reach any view about this as we were not there. Regardless it is not something we would pursue as a standalone issue as even if the Council had told the neighbour this, it simply reflects its current approach that the structure as currently exists is acceptable. While the Council could have explained sooner to Mr X that a partial reduction may be sufficient, the impact of not doing so is insufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the impact Mr X claims is the result of the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action and I have not seen enough evidence of fault for us to question this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman