Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not take planning enforcement action against a neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a neighbour has erected fencing and decking higher than permitted and the Council should take enforcement action to remove it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s neighbour erected decking and fencing which Mr X says is higher than allowed by Permitted Development. A Council Planning Officer visited and measured both and concluded that both decking and fencing were higher in parts than allowed by Permitted Development.
7. Not all development requires planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
8. The Planning Officer then considered whether the breach warranted enforcement action.
9. The planning enforcement process we expect is as follows. We expect councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to react. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.
10. The Planning Officer noted that the neighbour could have built decking and fencing that satisfied Permitted Development rules and still overlooked Mr X’s garden and house. The Planning Officer also concluded that the trellis (which elevated the height of the fence in parts) also reduced the overlooking effect and so would not cause such loss of amenity as to warrant action.
11. The Planning Officer concluded therefore that enforcement action was not expedient.
12. I am satisfied that the Planning Officer was fully aware of the impact the decking and fencing had upon Mr X after visiting the site. Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I do not intend to investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman