The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s dormer window which breaches planning control. She says the development has taken away her privacy and affected her health. She wants the Council to take enforcement action to make her neighbour obey planning regulations.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X complained to the Council that her neighbour’s extension was encroaching on her property and was breaching planning control.
The Council confirms officers spoke to the owner and the builder, reminding them of the need to keep the development within the site boundary and follow building regulations.
An Enforcement Officer considered the dormer window the neighbour has built. He confirmed it meets all the requirements for permitted development (PD) except one. The materials used do not match the existing building.
The Council considered whether it should take enforcement action against the neighbour. It decided that as the only reason it did not meet PD requirements was because of non-matching materials, it is not expedient to take formal enforcement action.
Government guidance does not say that councils should take action against all unauthorised development. But a council should act where breaches are causing serious harm to local public amenity. The decisive issue should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the unauthorised use of land or buildings merit protection in the public interest.
In this case the Council decided not to exercise its enforcement powers because it considers the breach and harm are too minor to warrant this. We may not question the merits of decisions where there is no fault in the decision-making process.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman