Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action about his neighbours alleged breach of planning control. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to make his neighbour reduce the height of his fence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X. And copies of his complaints to the Council and its responses to him.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X told the Council his neighbour is breaching planning control because his fence is 8 feet high. He said the neighbour has filled the gap between his fence and the neighbour’s fence with rubbish. He says that if he works on his fence the rubbish may fall onto his property.
6. The Council visited the neighbour and inspected the fence. It wrote to Mr X that it was satisfied there was no breach of planning control.
7. Mr X complained to the Council that it had failed to look at the fence from his property. And the neighbours had built up the land level on their side, so the fence did not look as tall.
8. The Council says it revisited the property and assessed the adjoining land levels. It also says it visited Mr X’s property. It confirms there is no breach of planning control. It also told Mr X that any concerns about rubbish between the fences is a civil matter between him and his neighbour.

Assessment

9. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) gives certain rights to carry out development within the curtilage of a dwelling house without the need to obtain planning consent. Part 2, Class A, allows a person to erect, improve or alter of a fence provided its height does not exceed two metres.
10. The Council has inspected the site twice, including from Mr X’s home. It is satisfied the fence does not breach planning control. Therefore, it has no powers to take action enforcement against Mr X’s neighbour.
11. I have seen no fault in the way the Council considered if the fence was permitted development. When Mr X reported the alleged breach of planning control officers visited the site. It is satisfied itself the work was within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Without any evidence of fault, the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman