Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding the use of an outbuilding does not amount to a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against an outbuilding at a neighbouring property being used as living accommodation. He says the use of the building impacts on his privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. In that regard, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the use of the neighbouring outbuilding. 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 whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault, in the way the Council reached its decision on this matter, to justify starting an investigation. The Council conducted site visits, noting there are no cooking facilities in the outbuilding and no independent access to it. As such, it decided there was insufficient evidence to conclude a material change of use to a separate self‑contained dwelling had occurred. The Council has also explained to Mr X how permitted development rights for outbuildings, and the concepts of ‘ancillary’ and ‘incidental’ uses, apply to this specific case.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning enforcement case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman