Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a decision to grant planning permission. Planning permission was granted more than five years ago. The complaint about this is late and we have seen no reason to exercise discretion on this point. Mr X also complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made this decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council permitted his neighbour to erect an extension with a large ‘factory roof’ next to his home in a conservation area. He says it disregarded conservation area criteria and failed to consider the impact of the proposal on his property.
2. He also complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a breach of building regulations.
3. Mr X says the Council’s actions have had an adverse impact on his health and house value.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We 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)

6. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission and listed building consent for his neighbour’s extension without considering the impact of the zinc roof on the conservation area and his property.
10. In response to my enquiries Mr X confirmed he received a notification of the application in 2019. He says he worked abroad at the time and opened the letter after the consultation period had ended.
11. The Council granted planning and listed building consent in 2019. Mr X says he became aware of the application when he returned to his home, therefore he could have contacted the Council at that time. He did not. I understand Mr X pursued the Council’s complaints procedure and there were delays due to the COVID 19 pandemic. However, it has been six years since the Council granted planning permission and I have seen no reason why he could not have contacted us much sooner. Therefore, I will not exercise discretion on this point.
12. Mr X also complains the Council failed to take action following his report of a breach of planning control. The breaches include a parapet to the roof and changes to the roof slope. The neighbour also installed a wood burning stove with a flue.
13. The Council has confirmed the flue does not require planning permission. A listed building application was submitted. The Council publicised the application and Mr X objected to the location of the flue. The planning officer’s report shows the Council considered Mr X’s objection. However, it decided to grant listed building consent for the flue.
14. The Council confirms an officer visited the site. However, due to the national lockdown because of the Covid-19 pandemic, it could not return to the site for further checks. The case officer closed the case after lockdown as ‘no breach’
15. Mr X pursued his complaint. The Council reviewed his concerns and visited his home. It advised the original planning enforcement case should not have been closed and confirmed there are breaches of planning control.
16. The enforcement officer prepared a report on the remaining breaches of planning control on the site. These are a parapet (described by the officer as ‘modest’) and a change to the roof slope.
17. The report shows the consideration given by the Council to the breaches and explains its reasons for deciding it is not expedient to take enforcement action against them.
18. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the breaches of planning control. However, it is for the Council to decide if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
19. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
20. In this case, the Council has visited the site and explained why it considers it is not expedient to take enforcement action against the breaches of planning control. While Mr X disagrees with how the Council arrived at the decision, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
21. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to his reports of breaches of planning control. This was caused in part to backlogs following the Covid-19 pandemic.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• The complaint about the decision to grant planning permission for the zinc roof in 2019 is made too late. Mr X was aware of the planning application when he returned from abroad and there is no reason to exercise discretion on this point.
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control. Although there was delay in its consideration of the reports of breaches of planning control the Council has investigated. It has visited the site and decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action. This is a decision it is entitled to make and it has explained its reasons to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman