The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against a neighbouring property owner despite earlier confirming it would do so.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights are subject to limitations and exclusions, but when a proposal falls within the parameters of development allowed by the Order it will not require planning permission; the Council therefore has no basis to stop it.
My assessment
Mr X reported possible breaches of planning control by a neighbour in 2020. The Council investigated and confirmed the owner of the property had carried out development which breached plans it had approved earlier that year. It confirmed it intended to take enforcement action against the owner but acknowledged the owner may apply for permission to retain the development as-constructed.
Several months later the Council wrote to Mr X again explaining there was no basis for enforcement action. It explained its reasons and confirmed that once minor changes were made to the property it intended to close the case as it could not do anything more. It said this was because the other changes were ‘permitted development’.
I appreciate Mr X believes residents should have an opportunity to comment on the neighbour’s development but this is not part of the process. The Council confirms the development does not require planning permission and it cannot therefore make the neighbour submit a planning application; even if it did, it would have no basis to refuse the changes. Its decision is a matter of professional judgement and there is no evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
While the Council’s email clearly raised Mr X’s expectations this had no bearing on the outcome of the Council’s investigation and did not cause significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman