Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against the breach of planning control at her neighbour’s property.
2. She says the Council has not visited the site or contacted her neighbour.

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.

(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 Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.

7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. The Council confirms that Ms X’s neighbour has increased their driveway hard surface and erected a fence panel. This is a breach of planning control as permitted development rights have been removed from the property.
9. The Council has considered the breach and decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action. It has explained this decision is because:
• The hard surface does not extend right to the boundary and it is not a form of development it recognises as intrusive to neighbours.
• Other properties in the area have similar hard surfaces.
• Surface water is not being directed towards Ms X’s home; and
• It does not consider a single fence panel to be a fire hazard.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
11. Ms X is also dissatisfied because the Council has not visited the site or witnessed the damage she says the extended hard surface has caused to her home.
12. However, the Council has explained it did not need to visit the site. This is because no measurements were required because any development without planning permission is a breach of planning control as permitted development rights have been removed. The changes to the property are clearly visible from existing street view images. There is no requirement for the Council to visit the property. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
13. Ms X says the extension of the neighbour’s extension of their driveway and the fence panel have damaged her property and the neighbour failed to comply with the Party Wall Act. However, property damage and Party Wall Act issues are civil matters and not for the Council to resolve through planning enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman