Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement issues related to works at the property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement issues related to works at a neighbouring property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. So, 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))
3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We also will not reconsider issues already addressed in response to a previous complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• Information about the neighbour’s planning application, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. With reference to paragraph 4 above, we will not consider any parts of the complaint about the Council’s handling of the neighbour’s planning application or its decision to grant planning permission. These matters were considered in one of Mr X’s previous complaints to the Ombudsman.
7. And with regard to the Council’s consideration of the planning enforcement issues which Mr X subsequently raised, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify starting an investigation. In particular, I am mindful that:
• The detailed rainwater management system does not fall within the scope of the planning application. Rather, the neighbour used a private, Approved Inspector to check the works complied with building regulations; so, the Council was not responsible for approving this aspect of the build.
• If the rainwater management system at the neighbouring property is causing a nuisance or damage to Mr X’s property, then that would be a civil matter between those two parties. Similarly, the alleged trespass by the neighbour’s builder is a civil matter too.
• The Planning Enforcement team was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide there was no material difference between the roof light shown on the approved plans and the rooflight that has been installed. Mr X’s associated concerns about the safety of the rooflight would not fall within the remit of planning control.
• Permitted development rights allow a 2m high wall to be built along a rear garden boundary. If Mr X has concerns about the foundations, that would also be a private, civil matter.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the planning enforcement issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman