Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a retrospective planning application for a development next to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault by the Council has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a retrospective planning application for works to the front of his neighbour’s property. In summary, Mr X says:
• The Council failed to consider the damage the works have caused to the front of his property.
• The development is not in keeping with the amenity of the village.
• The Council censored the representations he submitted objecting to the application.
• The applicant should not have been allowed to use impermeable surfaces in the development.
2. Mr X thinks the Council had a duty to protect him from the damage caused by the works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. And 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. If there is evidence of fault in the process, we consider whether this is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including their complaint correspondence.
6. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application and Planning Committee meeting on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

7. While I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on his neighbour’s planning application, we do not provide a right of appeal against it. Rather, our main role here is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and to consider if any fault is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
8. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council handled or determined the planning application that is likely to have affected the outcome, so I do not consider Mr X has suffered an injustice as a result of the alleged errors by the Council. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate the complaint. In reaching my view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The Council sought further information from the applicant in relation to land stability, and the Council Engineer was consulted on the method statement submitted.
• Although parts of Mr X’s objections were redacted on the Council’s planning website, the report to the Planning Committee includes the key planning issues he had raised.
• The report to the Planning Committee considers whether the design and appearance of the works is acceptable, and the Council was entitled to reach its own decision on whether the materials used were acceptable. The report also considers the concerns raised about land stability in the context of the impact on residential amenity, and a condition was imposed on the planning permission requiring the development to be constructed in accordance with the method statement submitted by the applicant
• Private issues between neighbours, such as damage to property, are not material planning considerations.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman