Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against 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 complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported his late mother’s neighbours have breached planning control by building an extension without planning permission. He also says the extension encroaches onto his late mother’s property.
6. Certain extensions to residential homes are permitted development if they are no more than four metres high and do not project more than three metres from the rear elevation. The Council confirms the unauthorised building measures less than four metres in height but projects slightly more than three metres from the rear elevation. Therefore the extension requires planning permission.
7. 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 affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
8. 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.
9. In this case, the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and agrees there is a breach of planning control because the neighbour’s extension is slightly more than three metres long. However, it decided this does not cause enough harm in planning terms and planning permission would likely be granted if the neighbours applied for it. Under the circumstances the Council decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take.
10. I understand Mr X is concerned the extension encroaches onto his late mother’s property and has damaged the property. However, boundary issues and property damage are civil matters and are not matters for the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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