Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to properly investigate a breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his report of a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property leading to an incorrect decision not to take enforcement action.
2. Mr X wants the Council:
• To conduct a site visit and thorough investigation of the breach.
• Take enforcement action against the unauthorised fence.
• Acknowledge its error and make changes to ensure no repetition.
• Provide written assurance that all future planning enforcement investigations will include site visits when outcomes disputed.
• Review its complaint procedure.
• Act on Mr X’s reports of harassment and safety concerns.
• Provide compensation for stress anxiety and impact on his property.
• Provide a formal apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

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. Mr X told the Council his neighbour had breached planning control. He reported the neighbour erected a fence measuring between 2.07 metres and 2.13 metres.
7. The Council opened a planning enforcement case. Generally, fences of up to two metres high may be erected without planning permission (if they are not in front gardens or next to a highway).
8. The enforcement officer considered online images and sought information from the neighbour. He then decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action.
9. Mr X complained the Council failed to visit the site and establish the facts. He also said the officer had made incorrect assumptions on the gradient of the land.
10. The Council’s planning enforcement policy states an enforcement officer will make a site visit where necessary. It also sets out that enforcement action against breaches of planning control will be considered when it is expedient to do so. It decided whether it is expedient, the Council will consider:
• the impact of the breach on public amenity
• the risk to the public safety; and
• whether the breach undermines existing uses or buildings that merit public protection.
11. In this case the Council confirmed that Mr X had provided measurements of the fence. The enforcement officer also obtained measurements from the neighbour. It explained to Mr X that fences must be measured from the ground on which it is erected – the neighbour’s side. As it had received the measurements from both Mr X and the neighbour, the Council decided it was not necessary to make a site visit. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
12. The Council decided that it is not expedient to take enforcement action to require the fence to be reduced in height by between seven and thirteen centimetres. Having considered the information provided by Mr X and the neighbour, and reviewing online images, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
13. The Council also advised Mr X that the construction methods used to erect the fence and the material used are outside planning control regulations.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his report of a breach of planning control.
15. There is no statutory requirement for the Council to undertake a site visit for all reports of breaches of planning control. It reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the neighbour and reviewed online images. It then decided not to take enforcement action which would require the neighbour to reduce the fence by a maximum of thirteen centimetres.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman