Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to enforce a breach of planning control committed by a neighbour located across the road from his property. He says the work that has been undertaken is incomplete, does not comply with the planning permission that was granted, and is an eyesore. He states the matter has caused him and his wife considerable stress and they are concerned it will affect the value of their property. The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into this complaint. This is because Mr X was not caused any significant injustice and we have found no other reason why we should continue to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has failed to enforce a breach of planning control committed by a neighbour located across the road from his property. He says the work that has been undertaken is incomplete, does not comply with the planning permission that was granted, and is an eyesore. He states the matter has caused him and his wife considerable stress and they are concerned it will affect the value of their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have:
• Read Mr X’s complaint and the information he submitted in support of it.
• Considered the complaint documentation we obtained from the Council.
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision and considered the comments that were made.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives in a property which is situated across a country road from his neighbour.
5. In November 2017, the Council granted planning permission to Mr X’s neighbour to erect a detached garage, hedge, retaining wall, and timber fence in the grounds of their property. The approved plans indicated the hedge would be placed along the boundary adjacent to the country road and would sit in front of the wall and fence. The planning officer who considered the application noted the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.
6. In the middle of May 2018, the Council partially approved an application from Mr X’s neighbour seeking confirmation that one of the conditions attached to the permission had been complied with. In its decision letter, it stated the condition should be fully complied with on completion of the development. It also said the neighbour’s proposal to change the wall to natural stone was deemed acceptable.
7. In mid-July 2018, Mr X wrote to the Council to update it on the work being carried out by his neighbour. He said a concrete block wall faced with stone was being constructed instead of a Gabion wall and contested the Council’s assertion this constituted a minor amendment. He also stated the planning conditions had not been complied with and suggested how the matter could be rectified.
8. At the beginning of August 2018, Mr X wrote to the Council to complain the development had not been built according to the approved plans. He said a concrete wall had been built and was out of character with the adjoining properties. He added ground water was being directed onto the road and asked the Council to respond to his concerns.
9. In the middle of the month, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It stated inspectors from Building Control had advised the wall could not be built as planned which resulted in an amended plan being submitted. It said the proposed changes related to the method of construction and this constituted a minor amendment as the principle of development had not been materially affected.
10. A few days later, Mr X emailed the Council and said it had not addressed all the points he had made in his complaint. The officer who provided the response emailed Mr X the following day and addressed each of his points. He noted the development was not yet complete and said some of the work undertaken could be retrospectively approved through the minor amendment process. He added the enforcement investigation would be closed if the changes were approved.
11. Mr X responded a couple of days later and said it appeared the development had been completed as the builders had left the site. He also stated he understood his neighbours planned to keep the wall in its present condition and asked whether there was a timescale for completion. In response, the officer said there was no timescale and added it was his understanding the neighbours wanted natural stone for the wall, which was not immediately available. He said he would contact them about the matter and he would let Mr X know when the wall would be completed.
12. Mr X subsequently escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s corporate procedure. It responded in mid-October 2018 and said that some of the work undertaken was not minor. Consequently, it said it would ask Mr X’s neighbours to submit a retrospective planning application to address the issue and regularise the unauthorised work.
13. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in April 2019. He says a retrospective planning application has not been submitted and neither the wall nor the hedge have been completed. To rectify the situation, he wants the Council to properly enforce the breach and ensure the work is completed in accordance with the planning permission that was granted.

Analysis

14. I note Mr X is dissatisfied with the appearance of the work that has been completed and is concerned it will affect the value of his property. I understand the nature of his concerns but they do not constitute material planning considerations which should be taken into account during the planning process. Material planning considerations in the context of neighbouring amenity includes things such as overlooking, loss of privacy, and loss of sunlight. They do not include the loss of a view or property value.
15. Consequently, I have considered whether the work has had an adverse impact on Mr X’s amenity. The evidence I have seen indicates this is not the case because the work has caused no overlooking or any considerable loss of privacy or sunlight. Therefore, Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice if the Council was at fault.
16. The law states the Ombudsman can discontinue an investigation into a complaint if a fault or potential fault has not caused any injustice to the person who complained, or the injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Similarly, our own guidance states we will normally not investigate a complaint in these circumstances.
17. Considering these points, I have decided to discontinue the investigation into this complaint. This is because Mr X was not caused any significant injustice and I have found no other reason why I should continue to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have discontinued the investigation into this complaint. This is because Mr X was not caused any significant injustice and I have found no other reason why I should continue to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman