Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action, and so we cannot criticise the merits of the decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Miss Q, complained about the London Borough of Lewisham’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. She said her neighbour’s extension is bigger than approved and, among other things, she has lost her privacy.

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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss Q and the Council provided, as well as information available on the Council’s website. I considered Miss Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. A planning authority must consider what, if anything, to do once it is aware of a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary.
6. The London Borough of Lewisham is a planning authority.

What happened

7. Miss Q owns a ground floor flat which she rents out. The Council granted planning permission for an extension to the basement flat.
8. The owners did not build the extension in accordance with the approved plans. Miss Q complained to the Council. She said the extension and its roof lights were bigger than approved and badly affected the privacy in her flat. She also said the extension now prevented her from building the Juliet balcony she had planning permission for.
9. The Council’s enforcement officer visited and viewed the extension from the bedroom in Miss Q’s flat which overlooks the extension. He noted the roof lights were bigger than approved. He then visited the basement flat and measured the height of the extension at three different points, the size of the roof lights, and their distance from the rear wall.
10. The enforcement officer concluded there were no issues with the extension itself, but the roof lights were bigger than approved. He did not consider the roof lights were harmful to Miss Q’s flat because there was no direct overlooking. So he did not propose to take any enforcement action other than to ask the owners to submit a planning application for the larger roof lights. The owners submitted an application which the Council later approved.
11. Miss Q was unhappy the Council did not take enforcement action. She did not agree with its view that there was no direct overlooking. Nor did she agree with its measurements of the extension. She believed the extension was higher than approved and, because of this, she had lost privacy and the value of her flat had reduced. Miss Q did not accept the Council’s view that she was still able to build her Juliet balcony.

Assessment

12. We will not investigate this complaint.
13. Planning enforcement is discretionary. The Council should only take such action when it would be a proportionate response to a breach of planning control. So, when the Council receives a report of a breach of planning control, we would expect it to consider the matter and decide what, if any, enforcement action is necessary. Providing the Council follows this process and considers all relevant matters, it is free to make its own judgement on how, and whether, to act.
14. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly investigated and took account of relevant matters before deciding not to take enforcement action: its enforcement officer viewed the extension from Miss Q’s property before measuring it, and he took sufficient measurements to satisfy himself the extension was the right size. So it is unlikely we will find fault with the Council.
15. I recognise Miss Q strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and that she believes her privacy has been compromised. However, as I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process, we cannot question whether its decision is right or wrong. I explained this in paragraph 3.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and so cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman