Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to take enforcement action against his neighbour after they built an extension that was different to the approved plans. He said the site plans were misleading and did not show the height of the new extension’s wall. He said he would have objected if the height difference were clear. He said the development had caused overshadowing to his property. He wants the side extension rebuilding to the height approved.
2. Mr X also said the neighbour had built the extension too close to his property. He said once they installed guttering that would encroach on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X states he would have objected to the application if the plans showing the height of the new extension had been clear. Despite Mr X not objecting, the Planning Officers report considered the impact the development would have on Mr X’s property. It also considered comments made by the Planning Inspectorate based on a previous planning application. The Planning Inspectorate decided there was no material overlooking of Mr X’s property by the development. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application to justify our involvement. Nor, has Mr X been caused a significant injustice by not objecting.
8. Although the height difference of the extension may not have been clear from the approved plans, the Council has visited site and confirmed the extension has been built in line with planning permission. Although Mr X is unhappy with this decision, further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
9. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council states the site plans do not show the extension encroaching onto Mr X’s property. However, if Mr X believes this has happened, it would be a civil matter between him and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman