Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application as well as a planning enforcement investigation. There was fault by the Council because it started but did not conclude a planning enforcement investigation. It also did not initiate a complaint investigation into Mr X’s concerns. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and offer a financial remedy to reflect the injustice to him.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application as well as an attempted planning enforcement investigation. Mr X says:
• The Council failed to visit his property before it granted planning permission
• The Council did not advise him and his partner of the date of the planning committee meeting
• Balconies on the proposed development were supposed to be turned around 90 degrees to protect his amenity but the balconies now face them directly.
• The Council did not inform them when planning permission was granted.
• The Council did not contact them before agreeing a demolition method statement.
• A planning enforcement officer as well as the development control manager agreed there had been fault with the Council’s decision on the planning application. Mr X says one of those officers stated they ‘will have to hold their hands up to this one’.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the background papers provided by Mr X and the Council. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response to my enquiries. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council. I considered the comments of both parties in reply.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complains about a planning decision that was made in 2018. He says he became aware of the decision in 2019 when demolition work started on the development site.
6. Mr X’s partner complained to the Council in January 2020. However, the Council told her it would not accept her complaint as she had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. This was incorrect. Rather, the Council says it should have refused the complaint as being out of time given the planning decision was made in 2018.
7. Mr X and his partner pursued matters with the planning and planning enforcement departments. It is unclear what happened because the Council has not kept adequate records of the contacts with officers and the investigations conducted by both departments.
8. In a September 2021 submission to the Ombudsman, the Council says it conducted a review of the handling of the planning application and subsequent events. It said the approved plans indicate some obscure screening at first and second floor level of a lower height than is normally required to avoid overlooking. It says no separate condition was imposed to require the screening to be provided and thereafter maintained prior to occupation of the approved units.
9. The Council said it had no record of an admission of fault regarding overlooking and loss of privacy with specific reference to the orientation of balconies on the new development.
10. The Council said it would contact the developer to negotiate an increase in the proposed screening. It said it would contact Mr X to apologise for its failings in dealing with the issue and offer him a payment to reflect the distress and time and trouble they suffered. However, when I contacted the Council in January 2022 it had not proceeded with any of the suggested actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. I find fault by the Council. This is because:
• It improperly refused to consider the complaint made by Mr X’s partner in January 2020.
• Its recordkeeping is poor. Its officers did not retain information on the planning and planning enforcement investigations it conducted in 2020 and 2021.
• It did not follow through on its suggested remedies since September 2021.
12. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, I asked the Council to:
• Apologise to Mr X for failings in the handling of this matter.
• Initiate a new investigation of his concerns whether about the planning application; the demolition process; and planning enforcement matters. Such investigation should include an assessment of the screening necessary to reduce overlooking and privacy issues.
• Accept a new complaint if he remains aggrieved after the investigation of his concerns.
• Pay £1000 to Mr X composed of £250 for his time and trouble and £750 to reflect the distress caused by the Council’s inaction on the matter.
13. The Council agreed with my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

14. There was fault causing injustice to Mr X. This complaint was closed because the Council agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman