The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control at the property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action to ensure an extension at the neighbouring property complies with the planning permission. He is also concerned the structure may not comply with building control requirements.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
information about the neighbour’s planning application on the Council’s planning website.
the Council’s ‘Planning Enforcement Policy’.
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the impact and appearance of the neighbouring development. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered this case to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that: Planning enforcement is discretionary. This means councils do not have to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control, and government guidance advises them to act proportionately.
A planning enforcement officer visited the site and concluded that although the height and appearance of the structure and not been completed strictly in accordance with the approved plans, it was not expedient to pursue enforcement action. The officer was entitled to reach this professional judgement, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
Planning and building control are subject to different regulatory regimes/legislation, so are normally dealt with as separate matters. In that regard, government guidance discourages the use of planning conditions requiring compliance with other regulatory requirements.
The Council’s final complaint response says its building control team is considering whether any further action is required.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman