Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbours’ retrospective planning application for a wall. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision-making process. Therefore, we cannot question the merits of the decision. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council told his neighbour to stop work on a wall and apply for planning permission. The neighbour continued with the work and the Council failed to take enforcement action. He says no one visited his property to see the impact of the wall on the visibility from his driveway.
2. Mr X wants the wall next to the highway moved back to its original position and the wall between his property and the neighbour to be removed and the fence reinstated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 including the Councils responses to his complaints; and
• information about the planning application available on the Council’s website.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Certain types of work can be carried out without planning permission. These are called permitted development rights.
8. Mr X contacted the Council to report his neighbour was building a wall adjoining his property and alongside the highway.
9. The Council says it visited the site. Officers decided the wall adjoining Mr X’s property was permitted development, however the wall next to the highway needed planning permission.
10. The neighbour completed the wall and put in a planning application for the part of the wall that needed planning permission.
11. A Planning Officer visited the site and wrote a report on the scheme. The report includes a summary of the objections made by Mr X. These include:
• The wall adjoining his property is built from breeze blocks. It is unsightly and out of character with the rest of the area.
• The wall is contrary to the property deeds
• The Council will set a precedent if it grants permission
• The wall encroaches over the boundary
• The work has caused safety issues; and
• Potholes and damage to the road occurred during construction
12. The report confirms:
• The breeze block wall is permitted development and does not require planning permission.
• The remaining wall is similar in height to the previous fence.
• The highways team consider the wall will have limited impact on visibility from the road and neighbouring driveways.
• Changes to the boundary, deeds and safety issues raised are civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour and not material planning considerations.
• Damage caused during construction are not material planning considerations; and
• Each planning application is considered on its own merits

The Council decided to approve the application.

13. I will not investigate this complaint. I recognise Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his neighbours’ planning application. However, it is clear from the Officer’s report the Council did take account of Mr X’s objections. However, the breeze block wall was not part of the planning application as it is permitted development. And highways had no objection on visibility grounds. In my view, the Council considered all relevant matters before approving the application.
14. Therefore, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. And, because of this, we cannot question whether the Council’s decision to approve the application was right or wrong simply because Mr X disagrees with it.
15. In addition, we have no power to make the Council remove the wall and/or reinstate the fence. So, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint. From the information I have seen, we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control and his neighbours planning application. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman