Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action against an outbuilding erected in a garden next to the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against her neighbour for erecting an outbuilding which she believes exceeds permitted development limits.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy about the size and appearance of the outbuilding erected in her neighbour’s garden, and thinks it exceeds permitted development limits.
7. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision that the building does not amount to a breach of planning control. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the Council reached its decision.
8. I find there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here to justify the Ombudsman investigating the complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Whilst it has taken several months to conclude the enforcement investigation, I understand Mrs X initially supplied an incorrect address and, as the Council did not have powers to force entry, it was somewhat reliant on the neighbour’s co‑operation in order to gain access and measure the outbuilding. The Council has also apologised for the time it took to progress the case.
• The Council attempted to visit the site on four occasions, and also wrote to the neighbour requesting further information and to arrange a site visit.
• When the Council did manage to gain access, it measured the height of the outbuilding in accordance with government guidance on permitted development rights. This says the height should be measured from the highest ground level immediately adjacent to the building, to its highest point. And, when an outbuilding is within 2 metres of a boundary, there is no limit on how close to the boundary it can be.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her concerns about the outbuilding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman