Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Nor is there evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that a fence is permitted development.

The complaint

1. The complainants, I shall call Mr and Mrs X, say the Council:
• Failed to follow Government and Environment Agency Guidance and allowed a neighbour to erect a solid boundary under General Permitted Development Rights.
• Accepted and processed a planning application which held incorrect information.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 and Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr and Mrs X’s neighbours have erected a fence with solid gravel boards and a section of railings. Mr and Mrs X complain this is against government and Environment Guidelines and should not have been allowed.
7. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GDPO) allows neighbours to erect a fence without planning permission. The Council confirms the fence meets the requirements of the GDPO. There is nothing in the regulations to remove the permitted development rights for such a fence within a conservation area or on agricultural land. The Council cannot remove or override that right.
8. Mr and Mrs X also say the Council accepted a planning application which stated the site is not at risk of flooding and the fence will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. They say if the correct information was given it would have triggered a requirement for a flood risk assessment.
9. A flood risk assessment would only be required if the application was for a change of use. The application in question was for fencing and new railings – not a change of use. Therefore, a flood risk assessment was not required.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault leading to the Council’s decision that the fence does not require planning permission or the planning application did not require a flood risk assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman