The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council has failed to properly investigate her reports of unauthorised development and business use by her neighbour. She feels she has not been listened to and is concerned the development will affect and devalue her property. She says the unauthorised use of her neighbour’s property causes noise disturbance and she has spent money seeking legal advice.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has investigated Mrs X’s reports and acknowledges there is some business use at her neighbour’s property. However it does not consider the use amounts to a material change of use and it has therefore declined to take enforcement action. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it was reached.
The Council’s investigation also confirmed Mrs X’s neighbour had carried out unauthorised development at their property and it invited the neighbour to apply for planning permission to retain it. This is part of the normal planning enforcement process and does not amount to fault.
The Council has not yet determined the application but Mrs X has the opportunity to object to it. She should however bear in mind that the Council cannot consider some of the points she has raised in deciding whether to grant planning permission. For example, the impact of development on property value is not a “material” consideration and the Council cannot therefore use it as a reason to refuse planning permission. It is also unable to consider any covenants which may exist to restrict development or use; these are a private matter and not a material planning consideration.
Mrs X’s main injustice lies in the noise she has suffered from her neighbour’s property and this is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Council. Mrs X should await the outcome of the Council’s investigation and, if she is not satisfied, she may raise a new complaint. If she is not happy with the Council’s responses to her complaint she may refer the matter to us to consider further.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of Mrs X’s planning enforcement complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman