The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not taking planning enforcement action against a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council refuses to act on his report that his neighbour has breached planning control.
He wants the Council to require the neighbour to seal the gap between the two obscure glazing panels erected on their balcony.
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 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s neighbour received planning permission for development at his property including a balcony. The permission includes the following condition: “The proposed ground floor balcony shall be flanked on the south and north elevations by an obscured glazed screen between 1.80 and 2.00 metres in height, so as to prevent direct overlooking into the neighbouring properties.”
Mr X told the Council the neighbour had installed two obscured glazed screens. However, these have a gap of about three centimetres between them which he says enables the neighbours to see into his home.
Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary. Where the breach involves carrying out development without permission, the authority may serve an Enforcement Notice if it is expedient to do so. It is for the planning authority to decide whether it is expedient to take action.
In this case, the Council has considered Mr X’s report, including photographs of the screens, including the gap. However, it is satisfied the “gap in the middle of the screen is inconsequential enough to be deemed 'de-minimis' and has no impact on the level of overlooking or loss of privacy, it is therefore not expedient to pursue further, and the case file has been closed.”
There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard and councils do not need to take enforcement action even if there has been a breach of planning control. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against the screening on his neighbour’s balcony.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman