Summary: We found some fault on Mr J’s complaint about the Council failing to act on his reports of a neighbour building without planning consent. It failed to tell him it had closed its investigation of a breach of planning consent. It also delayed responding to some of his correspondence. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about the Council failing to:
1. take effective enforcement action on his reports from March 2020 against a neighbour who carried out demolition works and built a two-storey extension without planning consent; and
2. communicate properly with him about his reports and action taken on them.
2. As a result, he felt frustrated, stressed, and anxious about its lack of action and responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

Planning enforcement law and guidance

6. The Council has discretion to take enforcement action. It may issue an enforcement notice where it appears there has been a breach of planning control; and it is appropriate to issue it, taking account of the development plan and other material considerations. (section 172(1), The Town and Country Planning Act 1990)
7. The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 says effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary and local authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. (paragraph 58)
8. Government guidance sets out several options available to local planning authorities to tackle breaches of planning control in a proportionate way. These include no formal action; allowing the submission of retrospective planning applications; or issuing enforcement notices.

Back to top

Council Enforcement Policy (2019)

9. All investigations are conducted without delay. It will act: to target enforcement action to help prioritise and focus its resources to areas that need them most; proportionately and reasonably; consistently.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information Mr J sent, including the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

11. Mr J contacted the Council after his neighbour knocked down and started to rebuild a two storey and single storey rear extension which he later realised was larger than the original. He complained despite making reports, it failed to respond promptly and did not take enforcement action against the neighbour for starting works without planning consent.
12. These are key dates:

2020:

13. April: Mr J emailed the Council, concerned a neighbour had started to build an extension. The Council has no record of receiving it. This is because Mr J did not use the correct email address.
14. July: The Council received a retrospective building control application for a single storey rear extension. A building control officer visited to inspect the works but could not gain access to the site.
15. August: Mr J contacted the Council again as the works were progressing. When his daughter chased the Council about it the following month, she was told some works could be done without planning consent but, it was unsure if that was the case here. An officer would visit. The Council apologised for not responding to Mr J’s earlier email.
16. September: The Council claims it first received a report from Mr J and apologised for the lack of contact. Building control officers visited twice, and the planning enforcement team started an investigation. The officer spoke to Mr J’s daughter about the situation.
17. October: A building control officer visited again. The officer wrote to the planning team and said the neighbour had sent building regulation plans and the works were inspected. The planning team’s view was planning consent was needed because it was larger than what had been demolished. The Council would clarify the works done. The neighbour was told planning consent was needed. Internal emails show the Council thought a retrospective planning application would get consent but, if one was not sent, it would not be necessary to spend more time on the case. The Council replied to Mr J explaining the neighbour needed to apply for planning consent.
18. November: The planning enforcement team closed the case as the planning team confirmed it likely a retrospective planning application would get consent.
19. December: Mr J contacted the Council again as he had heard nothing further from the officer who had visited the neighbouring property.

2021:

20. January: The Council told him there was nothing it could do about the issues he had raised about structural concerns with the works and its impact on his property. Damage to his property and failure to comply with the Party Wall Act were civil matters. It confirmed it had not received a planning application from the neighbour and it can only use enforcement powers when there is a necessity to do so. It told him it received a building regulations application. It later confirmed an officer visited the site twice and spoke to Mr J. It again told him it could not force the neighbour to apply for planning consent.
21. May: Mr J emailed again about the quality of the works which the neighbour had claimed were signed off by building control.
22. October: Mr J complained about the lack of response to his last email.
23. December: He again contacted the Council making claims of fraud.

2022:

24. February: The Council received a planning application for the development. This said works on the extension were completed in February 2021. Building control again visited the site.
25. March: Mr J contacted the Council as he had not received any details of the neighbour’s planning application. Shortly after, the Council granted planning consent. He sent representations when notified of the application. The Council approved the application.

My findings

Complaint a): failure to take enforcement action

26. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. Although Mr J made his first report to the Council about the works in April 2020, he did not send it to the correct email address which is why he received no response.
2. The Council became aware of the works in July 2020 when it received a retrospective building control application. An officer visited but failed to gain access.
3. Mr J made a successful report in September. The Council told Mr J not all works needed planning consent, but an officer would visit the site. An officer visited and the planning enforcement team started to investigate.
4. The following month, an officer visited and liaised with the planning enforcement team which said planning consent was needed for the works. The Council told Mr J and the neighbour consent was needed.
5. In November, the Council closed the case because the planning enforcement team considered it likely any retrospective planning application for the works would get consent. The Council reached a prompt decision about planning enforcement.
6. I consider the Council failing to tell Mr J it had closed its planning enforcement investigation was fault. It could have told him in November 2020 that it had closed its investigation and why. While I accept the Council correctly told him it could not force the neighbour to apply for consent, it failed to go on and explain why it would not take enforcement action against him.
7. This caused Mr J some injustice as his expectations were not managed properly as he thought the enforcement investigation was ongoing. Telling him of its decision might have helped him accept the Council would not take any further action on this complaint.
8. When considering his injustice, I also took account of the fact the neighbour went on to apply for consent. Mr J had the opportunity to make representations about it, which he took, and the Council granted planning consent. This shows the decision to stop investigating the breach was correct as the neighbour was likely to have received consent.
9. I am satisfied the Council correctly told Mr J the issues he reported about damage to his property was a private civil matter between him and the neighbour.

Complaint b): failure to communicate

27. I found fault on this complaint because Mr J’s email sent in May 2021 was not responded to by the Council for months. When he chased the Council about it five months later, it took the Council a further two months to send him a reply.
28. In response to my draft decision, the Council pointed out it dealt with his complaint during the Covid-19 pandemic. It noted these were difficult circumstances and the enforcement team was diverted to Covid-19 enforcement work. While I note what the Council said, the country was in lockdown between January to March 2021. From March, the country began a phased exit from lockdown. Mr J complained in May. I appreciate the pressures the Council and the enforcement team were under but, these could have been explained to him at the time along with any expected time frame within which it would respond.
29. I consider this failure caused Mr J some injustice. He had the frustration of chasing the Council about it. When considering the injustice to Mr J, I also took account of the fact the Council had already addressed the concerns he raised about the impact the works had on his property on several occasions.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. I considered our guidance on remedies.
31. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr J a written apology for failing to: tell him it had closed its planning enforcement investigation in November 2020: respond promptly to his email in May 2021.
2. Remind officers of the need to inform members of the public reporting planning consent breaches of its decision to end an investigation and why.
3. Act to ensure emails from those reporting planning consent breaches or making queries are responded to without delay.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I found fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman