The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to invite a retrospective planning application for unauthorised works to a building close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council is wrong to invite a planning application for the unauthorised development of a building close to his home. He says the Council should take enforcement action against the breach because his view will be affected and his property may be devalued.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council because he believes it should be taking enforcement action against the unauthorised development of a building close to his home which is not covered by permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are those which allow development to be undertaken without requiring planning permission.
The Council has invited a retrospective application from the building’s owner, and it has told Mr X that if it does not receive one, it will consider whether it is expedient to take enforcement action against the unauthorised work.
We will not investigate the complaint because, as the Council has previously explained, while the work which has been carried out is not covered by permitted development rights, this does not mean a planning application for the work cannot be made.
The action taken by the Council, inviting the retrospective application and deciding whether enforcement action is expedient if it does not receive one, is a normal procedure followed by councils dealing with unauthorised work.
Even if, as Mr X says, there was some delay by the Council in realising the works were not covered by permitted development rights, the correct position has been explained and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman