Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council decided not to take enforcement action against a resident who built two structures which exceeded permitted development limits.
2. Mr X said this had caused a negative impact on his amenity and caused him stress.

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))
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 provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against a resident who had built a structure exceeding the height limits laid out in permitted development laws. Mr X said this impacted his amenity due to residents being able to see into his property.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s representations and accepted the development exceeded the height limits set out in permitted development laws. However, said it would not take enforcement action because it was not expedient.
9. Mr X complained about this decision, but the Council upheld its decision, saying given the scale of the breach it would not be proportionate to pursue enforcement action.
10. Mr X then raised a concern with the Council about a second structure. The available evidence shows the Council looked at Mr X’s concerns but decided there was no breach of planning control.
11. The Council informed Mr X of the reason for why it did not believe there was a breach and referenced the height limits allowed.
12. Council’s have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them. However, as planning enforcement action is discretionary, Council’s can choose not to act at all.
13. The available evidence suggests the Council have taken all relevant information into consideration when making its decision and has explained its reasons to Mr X. The Ombudsman is not an appeals body and therefore we can only look at how the Council reached its decision. Because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman