The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We do not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action regarding a breach of planning control. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainants, who I shall call Mr & Mrs B, complained that the Council had failed to recognise or take enforcement action about their neighbour’s construction of a garage which was significantly higher than specified in the approved plans. As a result Mr & Mrs B wanted the Council to explain its actions, apologise, and take enforcement action about the planning breach.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, 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 the information Mr & Mrs B provided about their complaint, and their comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also considered information on the Council’s website about the planning applications in question.
Assessment When Mr & Mrs B contacted the Council to complain that their neighbour’s garage as built was higher than indicated in the approved plans, they referred to amended plans the applicant had submitted showing a significant reduction in the height of the garage compared to the original plans.
However, the application records available on the Council’s website indicate that there was a subsequent amendment to the plans which restored the original height of the garage, and it was these later plans which the Council approved in granting planning permission.
In the course of investigating Mr & Mrs B’s concerns, the Council found there were some discrepancies in the construction of the garage compared to the approved plans, but not in respect of the building’s height or size.
As a result the Council invited Mr & Mrs B’s neighbour to submit a new application for retrospective planning permission, with slightly amended plans to cover the changes, which it subsequently granted. However the dimensions and height of the garage remained unchanged from what was shown in the originally approved plans.
On that basis I consider the Council was entitled to conclude in its response to Mr & Mrs B’s complaint that the height of garage as built is in accordance with the approved plans.
In the circumstances I have concluded that we do not have sufficient grounds to start an investigation of Mr & Mrs B’s complaint.
Final Decision
We do not have reason to investigate Mr & Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s inadequate response to their reports of a breach of planning control relating to their neighbour’s garage. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in this respect.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman