The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of building development and fencing erected by a neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I call Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of building development and fencing erected by a neighbour. She says the building is of poor quality, the approved plans have not been adhered to and a fence over the permitted 2m limit has been erected at the end of her garden creating an eyesore.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call “fault”. 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) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.
My assessment
Ms X complained to the Council about a building and fencing erected by her neighbour which impacts negatively on her property.
Officers visited the site and Ms X to investigate matters but found the building had been erected in accordance with the plans and that because of the type of the building, it was not subject to building control regulations.
With regard to the high fence her neighbour had erected, the Council explained while the height of the fence meant it required planning permission, as it was thought desirable to provide adequate screening along the rear boundary to help screen the new building, its view was that the overall appearance of the boundary treatment was acceptable so enforcement action would not be expedient.
While I understand Ms X has been upset with the works undertaken by her neighbour, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and we cannot question decisions councils take if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
In responding to my draft decision Ms X says since making her complaint the Council has declined to visit her to see the situation from her property. However, an officer visit took place in December 2021 as part of the enforcement investigation and officers have seen the photographs submitted. It is for the Council to decide if a further visit is required and in this case it decided it was not. This is not evidence of fault by the Council.
During the visit in December the officer made an assessment of the structure and raised no concerns. Ms X says the fencing does not screen enough because she can still see the roof and that this feels oppressive. However, planning permission was given for the structure and her objections to the application were considered at the time.
Ms X says the Council has not been fair to her and that if it is not at fault then who is and who is protecting members of the public like her. However, in making decisions in relation to planning applications and enforcement investigations, the Council must follow legislation and national guidance and policy. Its decisions do not say there is no impact on Ms X but rather that the impact is not significant enough to refuse planning permission or to take enforcement action against the fencing. Ms X may well disagree with these decisions but they are made by officers exercising their professional judgement and their merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman