Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to development at a neighbouring property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not properly follow its planning process. She says it failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s planning breaches and granted retrospective permission which regularised the unauthorised development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 the complainant’s representative and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about its handling of development taking place at a neighbouring property which has impacted her property. She said the neighbour had not built in accordance with the approved plans and had been issued with a breach of condition notice but that the Council had then granted retrospective planning permission which regularised the breach.
7. The Council explained that it must assess each planning application on its own merits and the fact that a notice had been issued because development had been carried out which did not match the approved plans, was not of itself reason for refusal of planning permission. The Council said it had considered the impact of the development as it had been built and decided it was not at an extent so as to make the development unacceptable.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While the decisions taken by the Council were disappointing for Ms X, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected them.
9. It is noted the Council acknowledged there had been times when communication from Ms X’s representative had not been responded to in a timely manner and it apologised for this. However, this is not a matter we will investigate in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman