Summary: The complainant says the Council have failed to enforce a planning condition on his neighbour’s development. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions. It is also unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I will call Mr X, says the Council has failed to enforce a planning condition on his neighbour’s planning permission. This requires a two-metre fence to be erected along the boundary between Mr X’s home and the neighbours.
2. Mr X says the lack of a fence allows views from the neighbour’s outbuilding into his home. He says the feeling of being watched is causing him and his family distress and they cannot use their garden because of a lack of privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the information on the planning pages of the Council’s website.

Back to top

What I found

5. Several years ago, Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for an outbuilding in his garden. The Council granted planning permission with a condition requiring a two-metre fence to be erected on the length boundary between the neighbour’s property and Mr X’s home, when the outbuilding comes into use.
6. Mr X complained to the Council as the fence had not been built.
7. The Council visited the site. It told Mr X that it had reminded the neighbour of the requirement to comply with the planning conditions. But as the outbuilding was being used for storage at the time of the inspection, it did not consider it expedient to take enforcement action.
8. Since making his complaint to us, Mr X’s neighbour applied for permission to discharge the planning condition. This was approved by the Council.
9. In response to my enquiries, Mr X has confirmed his neighbour has started building the fence. However, he says it is too close to the boundary.
10. Mr X confirms he will not allow his neighbour or any workmen access to his property to facilitate completion of the fence. He says if they cannot complete the fence then the outbuilding should be removed as there will be a breach of planning control.

Assessment

11. In response to Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control, the Council visited the site before deciding not to take enforcement action. It explained its reasons for not doing so to Mr X. We would expect the Council to follow such a process and therefore it is unlikely we would find fault.
12. Mr X has confirmed the fence which he says it vital to his privacy is now two thirds built, but the neighbour has built it too close to the boundary. Because of this Mr X says the remainder cannot be built without access to his land which he will not allow. It appears to me that the neighbour is trying to comply with the planning condition and the situation is now a civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
13. Should the fence not be completed, it is open to Mr X to make another report of a breach of planning control. We cannot require the Council to take a particular course of action, such as removal of the outbuilding. On receipt of a report of a breach of planning control, the Council is required to investigate and decide what action, if any it proposes to take.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman