The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take enforcement action in relation to works being carried out at a neighbouring property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with the matters raised.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council has responded to his concerns about work being carried out at a neighbouring property. Mr X complains about breaches of planning control, noise and exhaust fume nuisance and health and safety breaches on the site. Mr X also complains that the neighbour plans to install a large mast on the site.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Council about development taking place in a neighbouring garden. He raised concerns about breaches of planning control, including an increase in ground levels and the location of a shed. Mr X also complained about noise and exhaust fumes at the development, Mr X also reported breaches of health and safety legalisation on the site.
In response to Mr X’s concerns planning officers from the Council carried out two site visits, where measurements and photographs of the neighbouring development were taken. The Council concluded that there had been no breach of planning control and that the works were permitted development and therefore did not need planning permission.
Officers from the Council’s Environmental Health team also carried out a visit to the site and considered Mr X’s concerns. The Council concluded that the issues raised by Mr X were too infrequent, or too short in duration to be considered a statutory nuisance, and that the work did not appear to be carried out in an unreasonable manner. For these reasons the Council said it would not be taking enforcement action.
In response to Mr X’s concerns about health and safety on the site, the Council told Mr X that it no duty to report the concerns he raised to the Health and Safety Executive, but informed Mr X how he could raise concerns himself.
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the above matters. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It has considered Mr X’s concerns, carried out site visits and has fully explained its reasons for not taking any further action. These are decisions the Council was entitled to take. Whilst Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decisions, this does not mean it has done anything wrong.
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his neighbours intention to install a large mast in his garden. This is because no planning application has been submitted for this. If plans are submitted the Council will consider them. Once the Council has reached its decision, Mr X may raise a new complaint if he is unhappy with the outcome. He may then ask the Ombudsman to investigate once he has a final response to his complaint from the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman