Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission for a neighbour’s retaining wall. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made mistakes in granting permission to build a retaining wall in a neighbour’s garden and the Council ignored his concerns. Mr X says this has caused him stress, physical illness and he has been subjected to verbal and physical abuse from his neighbour. Mr X would like the boundary to be restored and compensated for the stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council made mistakes when it granted permission for his neighbours to build a retaining wall in their garden. Mr X said the drawing references were incorrect and an incorrect boundary drawing was approved.
7. Mr X said the retaining wall does not reflect the approved plans and the Council ignored his reports of a planning breach.
8. Mr X said his neighbours trespassed onto his land, removed boundary hedging and removed a large area of land using a digger.
9. The Council say it used the correct planning legislation to assess the planning application and consulted neighbours. It says it investigated Mr X’s report of a planning breach and while it did not take enforcement action, it will continue to monitor the development.
10. The Council say it spoke to Mr X and made it clear that ownership of land was not a planning matter and he should consult with the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) or a solicitor.
11. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council reached its decision to approve planning permission. It followed the correct legislation. We cannot question the Council’s decision if it was reached in the correct way.
12. Enforcement action is discretionary, and the Council is entitled to make the decision not to pursue it. We cannot question this decision if it was made properly, and the Council can demonstrate that it considered the relevant factors.
13. The Council investigated Mr X’s report of a breach of planning and made a considered decision not to pursue enforcement action. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
14. Issues regarding access or impact of any building work on structural integrity of neighbouring properties are civil matters between neighbouring landowners. There is no role for the Council in resolving these disputes and so there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in responding to Mr X’s concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman