Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding it was not expedient to pursue planning enforcement action against a dormer window built at a property adjoining the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has decided not to take planning enforcement action against his neighbour’s dormer window on the basis of the permitted development ‘fall-back’ position. Mr X argues there is no fallback option, because a dormer erected within the permitted development thresholds is unlikely to comply with building regulations.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about his neighbour’s dormer window, and that the Council has decided it is not expedient to pursue planning enforcement action.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. 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 made its decision to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Council has visited the site.
• when considering what could be built under permitted development rights (i.e. the fallback position), there is no requirement to also consider whether such a development could actually be achieved in accordance with building regulations.
• Government guidance says planning authorities should usually avoid taking formal enforcement action where there is a trivial or technical breach of planning control.
• with regard to the appearance/size and level of overlooking, the difference between what has been built and what has been deemed to be acceptable under permitted development rights, is very small.

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 decided it is not expedient to pursue enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman