Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council failed to respond to concerns raised about an extension to a neighbouring property in a timely way. He said the Council also failed to take appropriate enforcement action against the neighbour for an alleged breach of planning control. We found the Council at fault for the delay responding to Mr X’s complaint. It has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to both Mr X and Mrs Y in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his family member, Mrs Y, that Birmingham City Council (the Council) failed to respond to concerns raised about an extension to a neighbouring property in a timely way. He said the Council also failed to take appropriate enforcement action against the neighbour for an alleged breach of planning control. He complained that the building encroached onto Mrs Y’s land and caused a loss of light for her property. He said this caused Mrs Y uncertainty and frustration, and affected her wellbeing.

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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events relating to Mr X’s report to the Council about an alleged breach of planning permission. I have not investigated matters that relate to issues such as boundary encroachment or other private land disputes. This is because these are civil matters where it would be reasonable to expect Mrs Y to seek a remedy through the courts.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Permitted development

9. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.

Enforcement

10. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
11. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
12. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
13. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

14. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2024 on behalf of Mrs Y. He reported that an extension to a property neighbouring Mrs Y’s did not meet the criteria for a permitted development and was therefore in breach of planning control. He said the extension encroached on Mrs Y’s land and caused a loss of light, affecting views from her property.
15. In late February 2024 the Council contacted Mr X to acknowledge receipt of his report. It contacted Mr X again in early March 2024 and advised it would investigate.
16. In November 2024 the Council received a planning application in respect of the property neighbouring Mrs Y. It proposed the erection of a single-storey extension six metres deep with a maximum height of four metres. The outcome of this application was to confirm that no prior approval was required for the proposed works. Mr X complained that the extension was already built by this time.
17. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2025 to ask for an update. The Council apologised for the delay and said the case had been flagged as a Council-owned property in error. The Council later said that this error had been corrected promptly, and the delay was instead caused by the member of staff assigned to the case being absent from work for an extended period.
18. The Council visited the site in June 2025. It contacted Mr X and advised there had been a breach of planning control, as the extension did not comply with permitted development limits and there was no planning permission or prior approval in place when it was built. However, the Council decided it would not be proportionate to take enforcement action. It advised the neighbour to install glazing in the extension to reduce the impact on light to Mrs Y’s property. The Council also advised Mr X that it could not respond to civil matters such as boundary disputes.
19. Mr X responded to the Council and said he did not consider its response sufficient. He asked several questions to clarify the Council’s position, including requesting a timeframe for any remedial works. The Council replied stating that it had not changed its position and would not be taking any enforcement action.
20. Mr X made a stage one complaint in July 2025. He complained about the Council’s handling of the reported breach of planning control and the significant delay. The Council responded, apologised for the delay, and reiterated its decision not to take enforcement action, explaining that the glazing had been installed and was an appropriate remedy.
21. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two later in July 2025. The Council responded in September 2025 and maintained its earlier position.

Analysis

22. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
23. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action where they identify a breach of planning control. Government guidance is clear that enforcement action is discretionary and authorities should consider whether it is proportionate and in the public interest.
24. In this case, the Council accepted the neighbour’s extension did not comply with permitted development rules and therefore amounted to a breach of planning control. The Council visited the site and considered the impact of the extension, including the effect on light to Mrs Y’s property. It decided enforcement action was not proportionate and instead required the neighbour to install glazing to mitigate the impact.
25. I have considered the steps the Council took to investigate the matter and the information it took account of when deciding not to pursue enforcement action. I find no fault in how the Council reached its decision and I therefore cannot question whether the outcome of that decision.
26. However, Mr X first reported the alleged breach in February 2024, and the Council did not carry out a site visit until June 2025. This delay of over 16 months is significant and amounts to fault. The delay caused Mrs Y avoidable uncertainty and required Mr X to repeatedly chase the Council for updates, causing him avoidable frustration and time and trouble.
27. The Council has apologised for the delay in its complaint responses, but I do not consider an apology alone is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. The delay was lengthy and the frustration and uncertainty experienced were significant. I have therefore recommended a symbolic payment to both Mr X and Mrs Y in recognition of the injustice caused.
28. I have considered whether this complaint indicates a wider problem with the Council’s planning enforcement service. I am satisfied the delay arose from case‑specific circumstances rather than systemic failure and therefore do not recommend any service improvement.

Back to top

Action

29. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr X and Mrs Y, I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay £300 to Mr X and Mrs Y to recognise the avoidable uncertainty caused by delay.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman