Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled planning applications and enforcement matters at a neighbouring development. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation. That is because further consideration would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council mishandled planning applications and enforcement matters at a site neighbouring a property he owns.
2. Mr X said the Council’s errors resulted in a loss of amenity to his property and neighbouring properties. Mr X was also put to time and trouble corresponding with the Council trying to find a solution.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
7. Mr X owns a property adjacent to a site previously in receipt of planning permission for development. Mr X rents his property out and lives elsewhere.
8. Mr X complained about several including the way the Council handled planning applications, its decisions on non-material amendments to the development, and delays investigating reported breaches of planning control. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused a loss of amenity to him and other residents and impacted the character of the area. He said the Council also put him to time and raising the issues before they were addressed.
9. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints in 2022. It said:
• There were procedural issues that could have been tighter in the processing of the application.
• It apologised for the lack of professionalism shown in dealing with the site.
• It accepted there were some errors in its handling of planning applications for the site, including a failure to tell all neighbours and failure to refer to the neighbourhood plan. However, it said this would not alter the decisions.
• It acted to prevent this fault reoccurring, including meetings with planning officers and arranging an independent external review of procedures.
• It admitted delays with planning enforcement. This was due to the volume of cases and lack of staff. The Council said it employed an extra planning officer.
10. The Council offered its sincere apologies to Mr X. It also offered him £200 to recognise his time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Analysis

11. I have discontinued my investigation. That is because further investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome. I therefore do not consider it is proportionate to investigate further.
12. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. We cannot overturn planning permission or impose planning conditions on applicants. Our role is to consider the process by which planning decisions were made. The Council has considered its decision making process as part of Mr X’s complaint and has accepted failings. It has also planned to review its service to make improvements.
13. Mr X also said there has been an impact on his residential amenity. The Council addressed this element of his complaint but did not find any significant negative impact which would have altered its decision or led to a refusal of planning permission.
14. The Council did accept an illuminated sign displayed by the applicant was not properly publicised. It said there had been a subsequent change to the character of the area. However, it did not say the sign causes an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The Council asked the applicant not to illuminate the sign late at night. If the sign causes a nuisance to residents they can report it to the Council’s environmental health team, and it can investigate this as a potential statutory nuisance.
15. I appreciate the time and trouble involved in Mr X getting the Council to respond to his complaints. However, I consider the Council’s offer of £200 is a suitable remedy for the injustice. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
16. Mr X does not consider my decision is a true representation of some of the Council’s responses. He considers I have underplayed some of the Council’s actions. I have summarised some of the Council’s key responses. I did not go into more detail because I decided it was not proportionate to continue the investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have discontinued my investigation. That is because further consideration would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman