Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a report of a breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to carry out a legally compliant planning enforcement investigation into his report of a breach of planning control on his neighbour’s property. He says the Council did not consider the requirement of development to be "entirely within the lawful curtilage" of the house.
2. He also complains the Council did not obtain or keep documented site measurements, footprint measurements, or distances to boundaries. Nor did it compare the outbuilding's position against HM Land Registry title plans.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X reported an outbuilding on his neighbour’s property breached planning control.
7. The Council confirms an officer visited the site and measured the building. They confirmed it measured less than 2.5m in height and the neighbour uses it for storage. It advised the building is permitted development if it is within the curtilage of the neighbour’s property. It also stated that even if the outbuilding is not permitted development it considers it does not cause any planning harm. Therefore it would not take enforcement action even if it was in breach of planning control.
8. Mr X believes the Council should have used calibrated measurement tools (laser distance meters, total stations) to record precise footprint measurements, and distances from property boundaries. And says it should have compared these findings to Land Registry title maps to prove the outbuilding is within the neighbour’s property.
9. However there is no requirement for the Council to carry out the detailed investigation that Mr X is seeking. I understand he has cited a previous Ombudsman investigation into a Council’s actions on granting planning permission without establishing whether the proposed development is wholly within the applicant’s ownership. However, this is not the same issue.
10. In this case Mr X’s neighbour has built an outbuilding on their property without seeking planning permission. The Council is satisfied that it meets permitted development requirements.
11. Mr X raises concerns that the outbuilding may encroach over the property boundary. He believes the Council must prove the site boundary to ensure the building is within the curtilage of his neighbour’s property before deciding whether there is a breach of planning control. However, an officer has attended the site and is satisfied the building measures less than 2.5 metres.
12. The Council has also confirmed even if the building were not permitted development, it would not take enforcement action as it considers it is not causing any planning harm. Enforcement action is at the Council’s discretion and this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his report of a breach of planning control to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman