Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take formal action regarding the condition of his neighbour’s land. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to investigate her request to serve a neighbour with a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act).
2. She says the vegetation and trees on the boundary her home shares with the neighbour’s site has grown uncontrolled. She says it causes
• excessive shading of her home
• facilitates birds which causes mess
• vegetation to encroach onto her own property and others; and
• an untidy and neglected appearance

Mrs X also says a cracked wall poses health and safety risks to pedestrians.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X wants the Council to serve a notice on her neighbour using section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’). That section of the Act gives councils powers to serve remedial notices on owners or occupiers of land. The section’s wording indicates the authorities’ power is a discretionary one, not a duty. Whether or not officers serve a notice depends on their judgement as to the adverse impacts caused by the land’s condition.
7. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there has been fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a properly made officer decision with our or anyone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes the Council has used to reach its decision.
8. In response to Mrs X’s report and complaint, two Council officers visited the site and inspected the boundary. They noted there were a high number of large trees on the property which, in their view, contributed to the character of the area which is a conservation area. They decided the condition of the land did not reach the threshold to warrant service of a section 215 notice.
9. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the site. She wants to know the specific reasons why the site does not meet the threshold for serving a section 215 notice.
10. The Council has advised that it is the professional opinion of planning enforcement officers that the condition of the site does not warrant the Council serving a section 215 notice. It has also informed Mrs X that other legislation such as that for high hedges or building regulations may be more appropriate routes for certain areas of her concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman