Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council decision not to take enforcement action against a garden screen installed by his neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. The end of Mr X’s garden borders his neighbour’s. The neighbour installed an 11‑foot tall and 26-foot long screen close to his side of the boundary, visible from Mr X’s property over the existing six foot fence. Mr X reported it to the Council.
2. Mr X complains the Council decided not to take planning enforcement or any other action against the neighbour’s screen.
3. Mr X says the screen is an eyesore, is causing him and his wife extreme distress, and having an impact on their wellbeing. He wants the sheeting removed immediately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We can only criticise a council’s decision where there has been fault in the process its officers have followed which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. This means we cannot replace a council’s properly made professional judgement decision with a different view.
8. The Council followed the proper enforcement process to reach its decision not to enforce. An officer visited the screen to see its location. They took photographs during the visit then discussed the case with colleagues, considering the relevant policy and legislation.
9. The Council confirms the screen is a breach of planning. But in reaching its decision not to take action, the Council recognised its discretionary enforcement powers exist to deal with ‘serious and irreversible’ harm’, to ‘protect amenities, safeguard the built environment and uphold planning policy in the most effective way’. The Council’s assessment included taking account of the impact the screening on the amenity of Mr X’s house and the level of real planning harm caused, the temporary nature of the screen, the fall-back position allowing the neighbour a six-foot tall fence, the planting done by the neighbour which will grow and mature, the limited impact on residential amenity, and the lack of impact caused to the public street scene.
10. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here. Officers were entitled to follow that process and reach their discretionary decision not to take enforcement action or require a planning application.
11. I realise Mr X is upset and distressed by the screen and its visual impact, and strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take further action. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman