Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. He says an enforcement notice has not been complied with and his neighbour’s fence is damaging his property and causing highway safety issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. Mr X first contacted the Council about a possible planning breach a few years ago. The Council looked into the matter at the time and an enforcement notice was served requiring Mr X’s neighbour to either remove the unauthorised fence or reduce its height.
9. In 2022, Mr X contacted the Council again as he was still concerned about the unauthorised fence. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and visited the site. The Council confirmed it is now satisfied the enforcement notice has been complied with and the height of the fence erected adjacent to the highway has been reduced to comply with permitted development rights.
10. Mr X disagrees and says the fence should be lowered further as this is what he was previously told would happen. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the enforcement notice had been complied with and I am satisfied it has properly explained why it does not have any grounds on which to take further action. As the Council properly considered if further enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I would find fault.
11. Mr X says his neighbour’s fence is damaging his property. But this will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman