Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to works to a property in Ms X’s locale which it decided were permitted development. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to works carried out to a neighbouring property which it decided fell within permitted development rights and so did not require planning permission. She says she was not able to give her view on the works and that their impact on the aesthetics of her living environment was not considered.

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 the decision making, 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 may decide not to continue with 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s neighbour carried out work to their property which changed its appearance. Unhappy with the impact on the character and appearance of the neighbourhood, Ms X complained to the Council.
7. Initially planning officers told Ms X planning permission was required for the work. However, on the submission of an application for the work, the Council decided it constituted permitted development and so permission was not required and there was no requirement to seek the views of neighbours.
8. While Ms X may disagree with this decision, it is one the Council is entitled to make, and we cannot review the merits of it. We cannot question decisions councils make if they follow the rights steps and consider the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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