Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s roof extension which does not have planning permission.
2. She wants the Council to require her neighbours to remove the dormers and reinstate the building to its former arrangement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s neighbours applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD).
7. Applications for CLOPUDs are not planning applications. Such applications are not determined on the planning merits of the case. They are determined on the facts available. It is for the local planning authority (LPA) to make a decision as to whether the evidence available is enough to allow it to make a decision on the facts one way or the other. If the LPA receives information satisfying them of the lawfulness of the use, operations, or other matter at the time of the application, they must issue a certificate to that effect.
8. The Council decided the application was lawful and issued the certificate.
9. Ms X told the Council the neighbour had increased the ridge height of the roof when they built the dormer. The loft conversion was permitted development only if the ridge line remained unchanged.
10. The Council confirms the officers visited the site and measured the increase in the ridge line. It says the increased height is closer to 10 centimetres rather than 50 centimetres as alleged by Ms X.
11. It also says its officers noted the height and positioning of the windows within the dormer are in the same position as shown on the plans submitted with the CLOPUD application. However one of the windows has changed from the intended two panes to three. The Council decided that the change in the number of windowpanes and the small increase in the ridge height does not affect Ms X’s outlook or increase overlooking. It says restoring the ridge line to the original position would not affect the position of the dormer windows.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with her report of a breach of planning control. The Council inspected the site and took measurements. It has decided that as the dormer would be in the same position even if the ridgeline was lowered and therefore it is not expedient to take enforcement action. It considers such action would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman