Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action against a structure erected by Mr X’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about his neighbour erecting a wooden framework with nets to prevent balls being kicked or thrown onto his property. He says the structure exceeds the 2-metre fence height limit and that the Council should take enforcement to remove it because it is a breach of planning control.

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 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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported a structure erected by his neighbour to the Council because he believes it is a breach of planning regulations. The structure is higher than three permitted 2 metres for boundary fences and Mr X says it is closer to 4 metres.
6. The Council investigated the report and concluded that the structure did not present sufficient harm to public amenity for it to warrant enforcement action. The structure does not restrict light in the way a solid fence would and the owners say it is of a temporary nature until a better solution can be found.
7. Government guidance does not say that councils should take action against all unauthorised development, but a council should take action where serious harm to local public amenity is being caused. Enforcement powers are discretionary. Before taking enforcement action, the Council must be satisfied that such action is the right thing to do (that it is ‘expedient’). Where the balance of public interest lies will vary from case to case. In this case the Council decided that the breach investigated did not meet the threshold for taking enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action against a structure erected by Mr X’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman