The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action regarding raising of ground levels without planning permission. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr D, complains about the Councils decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for raising the ground level of his garden.
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) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr D and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system. However, councils should act proportionately.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body against councils’ planning or enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was fault with how its decisions were made.
Once Mr D raised his concerns about his neighbour’s raised ground level, the Council considered the information provided. It also visited the site and considered the impact on Mr D’s property.
Mr D’s neighbour could have raised his land levels by 0.3 metres without needing planning permission. The Council accepts the levels have been raised more than this. However, it considers the harm caused by the extra 0.5 metres is not so significant to justify enforcement action. Officers also consider it is likely the Council would grant planning permission if the neighbour put in an application. It told Mr D it would not take enforcement action as it is not expedient to do so.
I understand Mr D disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take formal action. But the Council is entitled to apply its professional judgement. There is not enough evidence of any fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint as there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman