Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has granted retrospective planning permission for a neighbour’s fence. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and investigation will not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has granted planning permission for a neighbour’s fence. She says the fence is unsightly and out of keeping with the area. She says it will be costly and involve a lot of work to obscure the 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Ms X’s information, comments, and reply to the draft decision statement. The information includes a copy of the officer report approving the fence and photographs.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council has granted planning permission for extensions at the property and retrospective planning permission for the fence. The officer report says it received objections about the fence saying the height is excessive and overpowering and that there is no fence in the area of that height.
5. The officer report refers to a site visit. It says the fence is not readily visible to public views and does not harm the character of the surrounding area. It says the fence is between 2.25 to 2.7 metres in height. It says on-site factors mitigate much of the potential harm. It says the surrounding properties ground levels are higher, the upper section is a trellis and therefore has less impact, when viewed from neighbouring properties the relative height is roughly the same as a fence which could be erected without planning permission, i.e. 2 metres. The fence replaced an existing fence albeit the height has increased. Refusal would not be defensible if the developer appealed. The officer granted planning permission concluding that there is not a detrimental impact on neighbour amenity including privacy.

Analysis

6. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint for the following reasons:
7. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault. The Council is entitled to invite a retrospective planning application rather than take enforcement action. The officer visited the site and assessed the impact of the whole development on neighbour amenity. The officer had regard to relevant factors and assessed the fence in detail. Where there is no fault the Ombudsman cannot lawfully question the Council’s decision.
8. Ms X’s photographs suggest the fence is at the higher end of the Council’s range of 2.7 metres. Given there is no significant fault in the officer assessment, investigation will not result in the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has granted retrospective planning permission for a neighbour’s fence. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and investigation will not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman