Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not using planning enforcement powers against a neighbour’s garden structures, not applying the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and Building Regulations requirements correctly, not visiting their property when considering the matter, and how it dealt with the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement process, nor in it not visiting their property, to warrant us investigating. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s processes, there is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr and Mrs X caused by the matters complained of to justify investigating. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling when not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X share a rear garden boundary with a property whose owner modified and extended a garden shed and installed a large structure, which Mr and Mrs X consider is a veranda. They complain the Council:
1. failed to use its planning enforcement powers against the neighbouring owner’s garden structures;
2. did not correctly apply the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and Building Regulations requirements when assessing the structures;
3. failed to visit their property when considering the matter;
4. failed to respond properly to their complaint and not in line with its complaints policy.
2. Mr and Mrs X say the extended shed poses a fire hazard to their property. They say they have lost faith in and are troubled by the Council’s processes and their impacts on them and the wider community. Mr and Mrs X consider they have lost the opportunity to object to some of the neighbour’s structures because there has been no planning application. They say they have spent time and been caused trouble, stress and frustration pursuing the matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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)
4. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr and Mrs X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Enforcement is a discretionary power held by local planning authorities, so there is no duty on them to enforce against all planning breaches they see. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decisions on whether to use their powers in the public interest. National government advises authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where a breach causes significant planning harm to the amenities of other properties.
8. We note Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s interpretation and application of the GPDR, Building Regulations and the correct designation of one of the neighbour’s structures. Mr and Mrs X consider part of the structure connected to the dwelling is a veranda whereas the Council’s officers consider it is uncovered decking, the height and scale of which is compliant with GDPR. Mr and Mrs X consider the neighbour’s works require planning permission and must comply with Building Regulations, including those for fire safety.
9. The Council considered the evidence of the neighbour’s development away from the host dwelling. Officers determined the extended shed complied with GPDO. Officers found one part of it, a veranda built largely over the shed, was a breach of planning regulations. However, they assessed its impacts, including on Mr and Mrs X’s property, and concluded the breach did not cause such amenity harm warrant enforcement action. Officers gathered and assessed the information and applied government guidance to inform their decision not to enforce. They took the view that it was not expedient to pursue the matter because the structure caused insufficient planning harm to warrant enforcement, a discretionary judgement they were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. We note Mr and Mrs X consider the Council should have visited their property. But it is for officers to decide which properties to visit when assessing a planning enforcement matter. They are not under a duty to visit all properties claiming to be affected by a development when gathering the appropriate information required for their decision.
11. Even if the Council is wrong in its interpretations of GDPO, the planning breaches and the other issues Mr and Mrs X dispute relating to the neighbouring developments, we will not investigate. The core consideration in planning enforcement matters is whether the development outcome has resulted in significant planning harm to the amenity of surrounding properties. That outcome here does not cause sufficient significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X through amenity harm to their property to warrant investigation. Their concerns about fire safety are speculative, not based on any fire events, and those worries do not amount to a sufficient personal injustice to justify an investigation. Mr and Mrs X’s loss of faith in the Council and that they have not had an opportunity to make objections are also insufficiently significant injustices to them for us to investigate. We recognise Mr and Mrs X have spent time and been caused trouble, stress and frustration pursuing the matters. Neither this claimed injustice in isolation, nor in total alongside the others raised, amount to such significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating here.
12. Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s internal complaint process. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement decision-making process, nor it not visiting their property, to warrant us investigating; and
• even if there has been fault in the Council’s processes, there is insufficient significant personal injustice to them caused by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman