The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. We are unlikely to find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. He has also complained the Council has failed to take any action in relation to possible noise nuisance and fly tipping. Mr X says the unauthorised development has a significant impact on his property and his mental health has been affected.
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, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation. However, if the development is considered unacceptable, it may be necessary to take other action to secure compliance such as serving a breach of condition or enforcement notice.
Mr X contacted the Council to complain his neighbour had not built their extension in line with the approved plans. Mr X also said a dormer had been built at another neighbouring property without planning permission. Mr X says there have been significant delays and the Council has failed to take any action in relation to the unauthorised developments.
I am satisfied the Council has looked into Mr X’s concerns about the dormer. It visited the property and took photographs. However, it decided enforcement action was not necessary as the development can be built without applying for planning permission under permitted development rights. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his concerns about his neighbour’s extension. He says it blocks light to his property and is causing damage to his home. The Council’s enforcement investigation is still ongoing, and it says it will likely invite Mr X’s neighbour to make a retrospective planning application. As the Council’s enforcement investigation has not yet concluded it is not yet possible to say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. This is because the Council may still decide the development is acceptable. Furthermore, concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
Mr X has also complained about noise issues and fly tipping and says the Council has not properly investigated his complaints. However, I am satisfied the Council has considered these matters. The Council visited the site to look into Mr X’s concerns about fly tipping and has explained it is unable to take further action as the building materials are on private land. The Council’s environmental health officers also contacted the perpetrator of the noise and sent Mr X diary sheets to complete. Mr X says the issues are still ongoing. But the Council says it has not received any more completed diary sheets from Mr X and it is not able to take further action without these. It says if he is having further problems additional diary sheets can be sent to him.
Mr X has also complained his neighbour is harassing him. However, this will be a matter for the police, not the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is not yet possible to say if he has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation. We are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman