Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour who breached planning conditions. Mrs X says the building works by her neighbour affected her access to sunlight, privacy in her back garden and caused damage to her property. Mrs X also complained her neighbour applied in 2020 to change the use of the property from residential to a care facility. Mrs X says development a care facility next to her property will reduce the value of her property and make her feel unsafe. The Ombudsman found fault with delays to the Council’s enforcement process and failure to address all Mrs X’s complaints about breaches of planning conditions. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and pays her £250 for the stress, inconvenience and upset caused. The Council also agreed to attend Mrs X’s property to complete an investigation about the unaddressed breach of planning conditions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council approved a planning application for renovation of a property without consultation in 2017.
2. Mrs X complained the owner, her neighbour, breached planning conditions by using large grey blocks rather than the bricks like the originals. Mrs X also complained the owner erected a large fence between the two properties, increased the wall height of the kitchen and demolished a garage to replace it with an office space.
3. Mrs X says the building works affected her access to sunlight, privacy in her back garden and caused damage to her property.
4. Mrs X says the owner applied in 2020 to change use of the property from residential to a care facility. Mrs X says development of a care facility next to her property will reduce the value of her property and make her feel unsafe.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s enforcement action taken since 2020.
6. I have not investigated the Council’s actions about granting the February 2017 planning application. I have explained this within the section of this decision titled “Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
9. 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)
10. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
12. I have also considered the planning applications including the planning officer’s reports and Council’s decision notices for these planning applications.
13. Mrs X and the Council provided comments on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning Law

14. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development as well as its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not intended to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission subject to planning conditions to control the use or development of land.
15. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a developer has breached planning rules. However, councils do not have to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
16. Government guidance says:
17. “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework 2012, paragraph 207)
18. Addressing breaches of planning control without formal enforcement action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The Council should keep a record of any informal action, including a decision not to take further action.
19. Council’s often invite developers to submit retrospective planning applications so the impact of the development can be properly considered.

Council enforcement policy

20. The Council’s enforcement policy details how it will investigate and enforce any breaches of planning controls.
21. The Council’s policy details it has a general discretion about when to take enforcement action. The Council must decide when a breach of planning controls would unacceptably affect public amenity. The Council will mainly look to resolve breaches through negotiation and application of retrospective planning permission. Should initial attempts to amicably resolve a matter fail, the Council will consider firmer enforcement action.
22. When a person complains about a breach of planning controls to the Council it will decide on the priority class of the case. The Council will aim to respond to a complainant within 10 working days to advise of the next steps.
23. The Council will complete a site inspection to decide if a breach of planning controls has occurred. The Council will complete a site visit and decide on a course of action within 7 working days for Class B breaches and 15 working days for Class C breaches.
24. The Council will first establish whether a breach of planning controls has taken place. If the Council considers a person has breached planning controls it will write to a person to advise of the breach. This is a “Planning Contravention Notice”, or less formerly a warning or advisory letter. This letter will ask a person to bring a planning breach into line.
25. If the Council considers a breach of planning controls warrants quick action, or a person has not adhered to a warning or advisory letter, the Council can serve an “enforcement notice”. This will set out the breach and what steps a person needs to take to correct the breach. The Council will include a time limit for a person to correct the works in this notice.
26. The Council says it will seek to start prosecution proceedings against a person who does not comply with and enforcement notice. The Council may also take “direct action” where a person does not comply with an enforcement notice. Direct action is when the Council completes work to bring a property into compliance with the enforcement notice and recovers the costs from the person responsible for the breach of planning conditions.

Permitted development rules

27. Most new buildings and changes to existing buildings need a grant of planning permission from the Council. But, some developments benefit from a grant of planning permission from central government. Such permission, called Permitted Development, does not need a full planning application to the Council for approval.
28. Each type of Permitted Development has certain conditions and limits. If a development does not meet all the relevant criteria a person will need to make a planning application.
29. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 set out the different types of Permitted Development. Part 2 Class A concerns the development or alteration of a gate, fence or wall. Development is not permitted under Part 2 Class A if:
• The height of any gate, fence or wall adjacent to a highway would exceed 1 metre above ground level.
• The height of any gate, fence or wall not adjacent to a highway would exceed 2 metre above ground level. (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 2, A).
30. Part 1, Class A concerns the improvement or alteration of a dwellinghouse. Class A permitted development is not generally allowed if the development includes external classing such as render. However, a person can use render in a situation where render already exists on a property. This is because materials used for construction must be of similar appearance to the pre-existing dwellinghouse. (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 1, A.2 and A.3).
31. Part 1, Class C concerns the development of any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse other than for the purpose of an addition to the property. Replacement of roof tiles is permitted development unless replacement increases protrusion by more than 0.15metres or results in an increase in height. (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 1, C).
32. Part 1, Class E concerns the development of buildings or enclosures within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Class E allows for the maintenance of, or improvement of, pre-existing buildings. Class E limits a potential increase in size or height of an external building. (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 1, E).
33. Part 1 Class F concerns the development of a hard surface for any purpose or replacement, in whole or in part, of a hard surface. Development is permitted under Class F where the hard surface is made of porous material or drainage is provided for run-off from the hard surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 1, F).

Certificate of lawful use

34. Land and buildings are placed into categories under the Town and Country Planning Order 1987. Residential dwellinghouses fall under Class C3. Class C 3 is split into three main sections:
• C3(a) covers use of a house by a single person or family, an employer and certain domestic employees such as an au pair, nurse or nanny and a carer and person receiving care.
• C3(b) covers up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care which can include supported housing schemes.
• C3(c) covers groups of people up to six living together as a single household which do not fall within the C4 (houses of multiple occupancy) definition. (Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987) (as amended).
35. All three classes of property (C3(a), C3(b) and C3(c) all fall under Class C properties. This means a property can operate as any subclass in this category without an application for a change of use.
36. A person can apply for a change of use certificate from a local planning authority to confirm the existing use of a land or proposed use of a land is lawful for planning purposes. A Council has no duty to consult on an application for a lawful development certificate. A council must consider the relevant laws to decide if a specific application is lawful.

What Happened

Events before Mrs X’s complaint in 2020

37. Mrs X’s neighbours, Mr Y, applied for planning permission, Application 1, for the erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension in November 2016.
38. On 11 January 2017 the Council sent a consultation letter to Mrs X about the planning application.
39. The Council granted Application 1 subject to conditions. The following conditions are of relevance to Mrs X’s complaint:
• For Mr Y to complete development following the plans presented as part of Application 1.
• The materials for any external surfaces should match the existing building with any new works matching adjacent works with regards to methods, materials, colour and profile.
40. Mr Y started building works in February 2020 for Application 1.
41. Mrs X emailed the Council in February 2020 to query the building works from her neighbours. Mrs X emailed the Council on 5 March 2020 advising she had not been informed about the planning application. Mrs X asked the Council to complete an enforcement visit because the builders do not speak proper English and may be migrants. The Council advised it did not receive either of these emails from Mrs X.
42. Mrs X contacted the Council again in June 2020. The Council responded to Mrs X on 12 June 2020 to advise the Council approved the planning application in 2017 and provided evidence it sent a consultation letter to Mrs X in January 2017.
43. Mr Y made a second planning application, Application 2, in June 2020. Application 2 was for a lawful development certificate to amend the classification of the property from C3a (residential dwellinghouse) to C2 (residential institution).
44. Mrs X responded to the Council’s email of 12 June 2020 on 30 July 2020. Mrs X disputed that the Council had granted Application 1 correctly.
45. The Council rejected Application 2 on 11 August 2020. The Council said Mr Y needed to make an application to change the class to C3b and not C2. The Council said it would make a decision on any new application on its own merit.

Events from Mrs X’s complaint

46. Mrs X contacted the Council’s planning enforcement team on 11 August 2020. Mrs X said:
• Her neighbours were completing building works from early hours to late in the evening causing a statutory nuisance.
• The builders were using her garden without permission and dumping rubbish.
• Her neighbours were breaching planning controls by erecting a front wall which was too tall and the building works were not in keeping with the planning permission.
• A former council employee made the planning application which was a conflict of interest.
47. The Council confirmed it would open an investigation with its enforcement team to investigate the front wall, pillars at the front of the house and the rear extension. The Council told Mrs X it prioritised the investigation as Class C. The Council also told Mrs X to contact its environmental health team about the noise nuisance and to seek legal advice about use of her garden and dumping of rubbish.
48. Two other residents of Mrs X’s street also complained about breach of planning controls between 18 and 20 August 2020. The Council advised these residents it had opened an investigation about the same issues.
49. Mrs X made a Stage 1 complaint to the Council on 19 August 2020. Mrs X said:
• The Council’s enforcement team had not acted in response to her report of planning control breaches.
• Her neighbour had breached planning controls by:
1. Building a front wall above three metres tall and used render on the wall.
2. Installing hardstanding at the front and rear of the property for use as a car park.
3. Using materials significantly different from the street scene including using a grey brick rather than red-brick.
4. Making additional changes to planning permission which the Council should investigate.
5. Building a large rear fence not approved by the Council.
6. Using the property as non-residential commercial entity rather than a private dwellinghouse.
• The Council should require her neighbour to stop all works and restore the land to its previous residential use.
• Her neighbour’s builders also continued work until 10.30pm every day including weekends.
50. Mrs X spoke with the head of enforcement on 20 August 2020. Mrs X said she considered the Council should make the enforcement case a Class B property. The Council upheld the case as Class C.
51. A council enforcement officer visited the site on 21 August 2020. The enforcement officer could not access the interior or rear of the property on this visit so arranged to visit again. On the visit of 21 August 2020 the enforcement officer noted:
• The front wall height ranged between 122cm and 231cm and needed planning permission.
• The hardstanding installed had drainage and was permitted development.
• The render applied to the external walls may be permitted development as the property was half brick and half render before renovation works.
52. The Council’s enforcement officer visited the site again on 26 August 2020 and accessed the rear and interior of the property. The enforcement officer noted the following in addition to the observations from the first visit:
• There appeared no change of use in the property from a Class C dwellinghouse as the property kept a kitchen, bathrooms, living space and bedrooms.
• The rear fence ranges from a height of 197cm to 198cm but is on a raised bed of 29cm so the boundary fence is higher than allowed under permitted development.
• The developer has altered the front porch but this is permitted development.
• The garage was pre-existing and permitted development allows changes to the garage.
• The ground floor rear extension is allowable in line with planning permission.
53. The Council sent Mr Y an “warning or advisory letter” on 28 August 2020. This letter asked Mr Y to remove the front wall and reduce the height of the rear fence to below two metres (including the bed) within one month from the date of the letter. The letter also asked Mr Y to submit a planning application for any new wall and to bring the ground floor side bay window and changes to the pitched roof in line.
54. Mrs X complained the Council’s enforcement team had not acted and enforced breaches on 4 September 2020. The Council advised it would provide a detailed response to Mrs X shortly.
55. Mr Y contacted the Council on 15 September 2020 to ask for an extension of one week to comply with the enforcement notice because of a delay in receiving the notice. The Council granted an extension until 5 October 2020.
56. The Council sent Mrs X a Stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2020. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint that its enforcement team had failed to act. The Council said it was continuing to investigate the breaches and provided details of its consideration, the Council said:
1. The Council had not authorised her neighbour’s front wall. It has asked her neighbour to remove the wall within one month from 28 August 2020.
2. The hardstanding had the relevant drainage installed and was permitted development. This did not need planning permission.
3. The application of render to the property was in line with government guidelines and was permitted development.
4. Replacement of roof tiles on a house is permitted development.
5. The Council had not authorised her neighbour’s rear garden fence. The height of this fence was not permitted development. It had asked her neighbours to reduce the height of this fence below two metres within one month from 28 August 2020.
6. The ground floor rear extension is three metres tall and in line with the planning permission granted in 2017.
7. The garage was pre-existing and changes to this building is permitted development.
8. It’s enforcement team was investigating changes to the property’s roof profile, the two storey side extension and ground floor bay window compared to the planning permission granted in 2017.
9. The property is currently classified as a C3 dwellinghouse and the occupants can use the property as they see fit within this classification.
57. Mrs X responded to the Stage 1 complaint response. Mrs X said the enforcement manager sent the Council’s response meaning the response was biased. Mrs X complained the Council did not respond to her complaint about the conflict of interest.
58. Mr Y began removal of the front wall. A council enforcement officer attended the site on 29 September 2020 and confirmed removal of front wall had started.
59. Mrs X complained her neighbours had not fully removed the wall on 2 October 2020. Mrs X asked if the Council would take formal enforcement action. The Council told Mrs X how to escalate her complaint to Stage 2.
60. Mr Y provided measurements of the amended front wall to the Council and advised he would be issuing planning applications for the changes to the boundary wall, bay window, rear fence and roof shortly.
61. Mrs X made a formal response to the Council’s Stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2020. Mrs X said:
• A former council employee made the planning application and this was a conflict of interest.
• The Council did not send her planning applications for consultation.
• She had concerns her neighbour was turning the property into a commercial entity.
• The Council should revoke her neighbour’s planning permission and demolish the extension works which breach planning permission.
• Her neighbour used grey blocks for construction rather than red bricks and the Council only addressed the use of render.
• The rear garden fence was four metres tall on her side.
• Her neighbour demolished the previous garage to erect the new one. Mrs X said the garage was therefore a new building and not improvement works on the previous.
• Mr Y had increased the rear kitchen height compared to the planning permission.
• Her neighbour had applied render to her wall.
62. The Council confirmed with Mrs X on 29 October 2020 that it would address her Stage 2 complaint.
63. The Council sent its Stage 2 complaint response to Mrs X on 20 November 2020. The Council said:
• The environmental health and noise nuisance team had been investigating the complaints about noise nuisance and served a notice to the property on 26 August 2020.
• The enforcement teams’ decision the application of render and improvements to the garage followed permitted development rights and government guidance.
• The owner is working with the Council to address all enforcement matters raised. The owner has already taken some remedial action and the matter is continuing with the others.
• The height of the kitchen is in line with the planning permission granted.
• A dispute over render applied to Mrs X’s wall is a civil dispute.
• The property is still a dwellinghouse and the owner has not changed use to a commercial entity.
• While a former employee of the Council made the planning application the Council’s planning, enforcement or environmental health teams did not know this employee. This employee worked in a different building to these departments and there is no evidence they gained an advantage or received preferential treatment.
64. Mr Y made four planning applications on 18 December 2020 for the boundary wall, rear fence, bay window and roof extension. These planning applications were invalid.
65. Mrs X complained to a councillor in February 2021 about her neighbours using the property as a commercial entity. This councillor passed Mrs X’s concerns on to the Council.
66. Mrs X also complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman on 22 February 2021.
67. The Council liaised with Mr Y in March and April 2021. The Council confirmed Mr Y had rented the property to tenants and Mr Y provided evidence of a tenancy agreement. Mr Y confirmed his plan to seek a certificate of lawful use as a Class C(b) property.
68. The Council advised the councillor on 8 April 2021 of Mr Y’s plan. The Council told the councillor Mr Y could use the property as a Class C3(b) without planning permission and this covers up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care.
69. Mr Y made a planning application, Application 3, on 28 April 2021. This application sought a change of certificate of lawful use to a Class C3(b).
70. The councillor sought advice for Mrs X about Application 3. The Council advised Mr Y did not need planning permission to use the property as a Class C3(b) but was seeking this for certainty. The Council said it had no powers to restrict this activity.
71. Mr Y withdraw Application 3 on 4 June 2021 and made a new application on 9 June 2021, Application 4, for the same purpose.
72. The Council wrote to Mr Y on 24 June 2021. The Council said the four planning applications he submitted on 18 December 2020 were invalid. The Council asked Mr Y to resolve the outstanding issues surrounding the boundary wall, bay window, roof extension and rear fence within 14 days.
73. Mr Y made four new planning applications on 22 July 2021. These planning applications were for the retention of changes made to the boundary wall, rear fence, bay window and roof extension.
74. The Council rejected Application 4 on 31 August 2021. The Council said Mr Y needed to make an application for a change of use to a C2 Residential Institution.

Analysis

Certificate of lawful use

75. Mrs X complained her neighbours applied to change the use of the property from residential to a care facility in 2020. Mrs X complained about her neighbour’s plan to run a commercial entity in a residential area.
76. The Council considered Mr Y’s planning application in June 2020 to convert the property from a Class C3a residential dwellinghouse to a Class C2 residential institution. The Council rejected Mr Y’s application.
77. Mrs X’s complaint is about the possibility of having a care home or residential institution as a neighbour. The Council’s rejection of Mr Y’s application kept the property as a residential dwellinghouse and prevented Mrs X’s concerns.
78. There is no injustice to Mrs X’s in the Council’s decision to reject Mr Y’s June 2020 planning application.
79. Mr Y has since made two further planning applications in 2021 for a certificate of lawful use. Mr Y withdrew the first and replaced this with Application 4. Application 4 sought a certificate of lawful use to convert the property from a Class C3a residential dwellinghouse to a Class C3b residential dwellinghouse.
80. The Council rejected Application 4 on 31 August 2021. The Council’s planning officer advised Mr Y would need to make an application for a C2 (Residential Institution) for the purposes set out in Application 4.
81. While the Council’s planning team rejected Application 4, the Council’s enforcement team has explained that Application 4 was for Mr Y’s certainty. This was because the Council already classified Mr Y’s property as a Class C3 residential dwellinghouse. This meant Mr Y could use the property for Class C3 (a), (b) or (c ) without a certificate of lawful use. The Council cannot prevent Mr Y from using the property as a Class C3 (b) residential dwellinghouse despite rejecting Application 4 because it is already a Class C3 property.
82. At present Mr Y has not made a planning application to change the property to a Class C2 (Residential Institution). The Council also cannot prevent Mr Y from making planning applications for a certificate of lawful use in the future. The Council must make a decision on each application on its own merits.
83. The Council is satisfied Mr Y’s property is currently operating as a Class C3 dwellinghouse and not Class C2. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision.

Initial enforcement investigation

84. Mrs X complained Mr Y completed building works which either did not match the planning permission granted or Mr Y did not reference on the planning permission at all.
85. The Council has a duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning control. Should the Council discover breaches of planning control it should take suitable enforcement action as it sees fit.
86. The Council opened an enforcement case following Mrs X contact on 11 August 2020 about the alleged breach of planning control. The Council enforcement team classified the case as Class C. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. This allowed the Council 15 working days to visit the site and decide on the next steps.
87. The Council officer attended the site twice, on 21 August 2020 and 26 August 2020, before it sent an enforcement notice to Mr Y on 28 August 2020. The Council completed its initial site visits and acted within 15 working days in line with its policy. I do not find fault.

Permitted development

88. A person can build on their property without a planning application if the proposed works fall in line with Permitted Development rights.
89. As part of the Council’s enforcement investigation it noted the use of render, changing the roof tiles, changes to the garage and installation of hardstanding was all permitted development.
90. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. My role is to consider the process followed by the Council, whether it followed the guidance and whether there was fault in the way it reached its decision. If the Council considered the information properly, we cannot find fault just because a person disagrees with the decision.
91. Any decision a Council makes about permitted development must be supported by the relevant legislation as detailed in paragraphs 29 to 33.
92. The Council decided Mr Y’s installation of hardstanding complied with Part 1, Class F of the permitted development regulations. It also decided changing the roof riles complied with Part 1, Class C of the same regulations. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision.
93. The Council also decided Mr Y’s application of render to the external surface complied with Part 1, Class A of the permitted development regulations. The Council explained to Mrs X the pre-existing property had render. This meant Mr Y could use a render of a similar colour and texture during renovation works. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision.
94. Mrs X complained that Mr Y demolished the previous garage and replaced this with an office. Mrs X said this was not an improvement to the pre-existing garage. The Council decided Mr Y’s renovation works of the garage complied with Part 1, Class E of the permitted development regulations.
95. Part 1, Class E allows for maintenance or improvement of an outbuilding. It does not legislate whether a person can or cannot demolish a pre-existing building and replace it. Class E does however place limits on potential size or height increases to external buildings. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent Mr Y from demolishing a pre-existing building and putting a new similar sized building in its place.
96. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision the application of render to the property, renovation of the garage, replacement of roof tiles and installation of hardstanding were permitted development.

Enforcement action

97. Unlike permitted development, a person cannot complete certain works without planning permission.
98. As part of the Council’s enforcement investigation, it noted Mr Y had erected a front wall and rear fence which were both too tall to fall under permitted development. The Council also noted build changes to the pitched roof line and ground floor side bay window which did not follow previous planning permissions.
99. The Council sent Mr Y a warning letter on 28 August 2020 asking him to remove the front wall and reduce the height of the rear fence. The Council also asked Mr Y to apply for planning permission to bring changes to the building in line. The Council allowed Mr Y 28 days to complete this action but extended this by a week on request.
100. The Council acted in line with its enforcement policy by sending a warning letter to Mr Y and setting out the actions Mr Y should take to correct the breaches of planning control. I also consider the Council acted suitably to allow the week’s extension on request. I do not find fault with the Council’s enforcement action up to 5 October 2020.
101. The Council’s enforcement action up 5 October 2020 resulted in Mr Y removing the front wall to his property.
102. However, Mr Y replaced the front wall to his property and failed to make the relevant planning applications to bring the other matters into line by 5 October 2020.
103. The Council’s enforcement team took no further action from 5 October 2020 until 24 June 2021. This was despite Mr Y failing to submit valid planning applications for the breaches of planning conditions the Council outlined on 28 August 2020.
104. The Council advised its enforcement team was unaware Mr Y’s planning applications on 19 December 2020 were invalid. The Council says this was because its planning team did not advise the enforcement team about this. This is a fault in communication between Council departments.
105. The Council has already set up a new process between these two departments to ensure better communication about invalid planning applications. I consider this corrects this fault moving forwards.
106. While there was fault through communication, the Council’s enforcement team also did not check the enforcement case about Mr Y’s property for eight and a half months. The enforcement team took no action from 5 October 2020 before contacting Mr Y on 24 June 2021. This delay and inaction is fault.
107. Since 24 June 2021, Mr Y has now submitted four new planning applications to seek approval of the changes to the front wall, rear fence, side bay window and roof. The Council has accepted these planning applications and is in the process of deciding whether to accept or reject the proposals.
108. The Council has now followed through on suitable enforcement action to ensure Mr Y made a planning application to bring matters into line. While the eight and half months delay was fault, I am satisfied the Council has now taken enforcement action in line with its policy.
109. Mrs X now has an opportunity to comment on the four planning applications through the Council’s planning portal. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision the Council is yet to make about the open planning applications.
110. While the Council has now followed its enforcement policy, the delay and inaction by the Council has caused Mrs X uncertainty and inconvenience from 5 October 2020 to 24 June 2021.

Using grey brick

111. Mrs X complained to the Council about Mr Y’s use of a grey brick for extension works to the property.
112. Mrs X first outlined this issue within her Stage 1 complaint on 19 August 2020 and reiterated the issue within her Stage 2 complaint on 14 October 2020. The Council failed to address the grey brick within both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses.
113. The Council’s response to Mrs X complaints about the materials used focused on Mr Y’s application of render, as addressed in paragraph 88. If Mr Y had covered the entire outside to the property in render, and none of the grey-brickwork was showing, there would be no fault in the Council’s decision.
114. However, Mrs X has provided photographs to the Council on 20 August 2020 and 16 October 2020 showing exterior grey brick which Mr Y had not applied the render to. Mrs X took these photographs from her property.
115. The Council has not taken photographs of this part of the extension. Additionally, none of the Council’s enforcement notes or site visit reports refer to any exposed grey brickwork. This is despite Mrs X’s direct complaint about this issue and her providing evidence of its existence.
116. The Council has failed to consider the exposed grey brickwork as part of its enforcement investigation. The Council has failed to decide whether this is permitted development or a breach of planning conditions. This is fault.
117. This fault causes an injustice to Mrs X as the grey brickwork directly faces her property. This means Mrs X’s amenity through her view has been impacted since at least August 2020 by a wall that may not adhere to planning permissions or permitted development rights. Since Ms X raised this issue with the Council on 19 August 2020, the Council is at fault for the potential impact since this point.
118. The Ombudsman cannot decide that this area of wall does not adhere to planning permissions or permitted development. The Council must make this decision. The Council should complete a suitable investigation to consider this.

Back to top

Agreed action

119. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Provide an apology to Mrs X for the delays and inaction in handling the enforcement case about Mr Y’s property from 5 October 2020 to 24 June 2021.
• Contact Mrs Y to arrange a site visit to her property for a potential enforcement investigation about the exposed grey brick materials used on the rear extension by Mr Y.
• Provide Mrs X with a payment of £250 to reflect the uncertainty and inconvenience the delays form 5 October 2020 to 24 June 2021 caused Mrs X. And the frustration and potential impact on her amenity caused by the failure of the Council to address her concerns about the grey-brick material used.

Back to top

Final decision

120. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council accepted my recommendations, I have completed my investigation as I consider that a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

121. I did not investigate the Council’s actions about granting the February 2017 planning application.
122. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint which is about events known to Mrs X for more than 12 months without good reason.
123. The Council granted planning permission in February 2017. Mrs X was aware of the planning application in 2017. Mrs X could reasonably be expected to have brought her complaint to the Council and Ombudsman much sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman