Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about planning enforcement. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about unauthorised developments to a neighbouring property. He says the developments have caused loss of privacy to his home. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his concerns which caused stress and frustration. Mr X wants the Council to properly investigate the acceptability of the developments and remedy its procedural failings.

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))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained about a breach of planning control in relation to a neighbouring property. The Council investigated the matter and found there was a breach of planning control. It issued an enforcement notice and the developer complied with the Council’s instructions. The Council decided further enforcement action was not necessary.
7. I understand Mr X is still not happy with the outcome. The Council said the development replaced an older boundary and was satisfied it did not have a bigger impact than it did before. I understand Mr X was concerned about the safety of the development, however the Council was satisfied this was addressed by the height reduction. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council handled the breach of planning control.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the impact of the development on the highway and neighbouring amenity and therefore I cannot question its decision not to take further action.
9. Mr X further complained about the impact of another development. However 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’. The Council investigated the possible breach and found the development met the requirements of permitted development and so it took no further action. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council investigated the matter.
10. Mr X complained about a further development at a neighbouring property which means his garden is now overlooked. The Council investigated and decided that although part of it did not fall within permitted development, it was not expedient to take enforcement action. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. The Council explained to Mr X why it decided not to take enforcement action. I am satisfied with how the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns.
11. I understand Mr X says the Council did not carry out site visits to investigate his concerns. However, the Council did visit the site in this case. It took measurements and considered the height of the development in relation to the land around it. Councils are not required to visit neighbouring properties when investigating a possible planning breach. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council investigated the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman