Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for a boundary fence next to the complainant’s property. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored his comments on his neighbour’s retrospective planning applications for a boundary fence, and has dismissed his subsequent complaint about the height.
2. Mr X says the fence impacts on the amenity of his property, and he has spent significant time and effort on pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start or continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the height of the fence erected along the boundary with his neighbour.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we do not overrule council decisions on planning applications or planning enforcement matters. Instead, our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made and to look for evidence of fault that causes a significant injustice to the individual complainant. In the context of a planning complaint, this means we need evidence to show that but for any alleged fault, it is likely the outcome would have been different.
8. The Council accepts the height measurements shown on the plans submitted with the neighbour’s applications were incorrect, and that this measurement was referred to in the officer’s report. It also accepts Mr X’s representation highlighted the discrepancy.
9. However, I agree with the Council’s view that because the applications were retrospective, it was possible to see and assess the impact of the fence in situ, irrespective of the height annotated on the plans. I am therefore satisfied the applications are likely to have been approved even if the correct ‘as built’ height had been shown on the plans, so Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice by the acknowledged faults.
10. And whilst it would clearly be preferable for the neighbour to have submitted further applications to regularise the situation, the Council is entitled to reach a decision that it is not expedient to pursue any planning enforcement action. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it reached that decision.
11. In light of the above, the Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that fault has caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman