Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to take planning enforcement action against an outbuilding being used as a bedroom. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about some parts of the complaint, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and subsequent planning enforcement issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says they were misled about the use of an outbuilding erected in a neighbouring garden, and thinks the Council should take enforcement action to stop it being used as a bedroom. He says the development is a visual and noise nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We also 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X, including his comments on a previous version of this statement.
• information about the neighbour’s planning application on the Council’s website, and,
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The 12-month time restriction detailed above would apply to the part of the complaint about the Council’s assessment of the impact of the outbuilding on Mr X when determining the planning application. This is because the application was approved in Autumn 2021, yet Mr X did not contact the Ombudsman until July 2023. I see no good reasons why the Ombudsman should exercise discretion to consider this issue now.
7. And even if this time restriction did not apply, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application or the subsequent enforcement case to justify us starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council will take the information submitted with a planning application on face value, and consider it on that basis.
• The public comments on the proposal are summarised in the delegated report.
• The delegated report goes on to consider the appearance of the development and its impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, including Mr X’s home.
• The Council imposed a condition on the planning permission requiring the use of the outbuilding to remain ancillary to the main house, and for it not to be used as a separate dwelling.
• The Council’s planning enforcement officer has undertaken a site visit and is satisfied the bedroom use is in accordance with the condition. This is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
• Although the outbuilding is being used in a different way to that specified on the application form, and is contrary to what Mr X was expecting, this does not necessarily mean there has been a breach of planning control or that the Council has acted with fault.
• If Mr X has new evidence that the bedroom use is no longer ancillary/incidental to the main dwelling, he can submit this to the Council’s planning enforcement team for further consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner about some parts of the complaint, and in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application or the subsequent alleged breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman