Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for erecting a 1.8 metre fence on the boundary with his property. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council failing to take enforcement action against his neighbour’s removal of a hedge and replacing it with a fence. He says the fence affects his property and he wants the Council to seek its removal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council when his neighbour erected a 1.8 metre high fence along his property boundary in front of the building line. The Council told him that it did not consider the fence to warrant planning enforcement action because there was insufficient harm to the public interest. The Council advised that the 1-metre height limit only applies to fences which are adjacent to the public highway and that the limit is 2 metres in other situations.
5. Councils as planning authorities have a discretionary power to consider enforcement action where a breach of planning regulations has been identified. Government guidance requires to consider the level of demonstrable harm to the public interest by the breach and whether it warrants further action.
6. In this case the Council said there is insufficient harm to the public interest and that the fence would comply with the limits set out as permitted development in the General Permitted Development Order.
7. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman