Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the approval of a neighbour’s planning application and how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. Mr X complained the Council has not followed the proper procedures, legislation, case law, or considered all his objections when the original planning application was accepted.
2. Mr X says the construction has not been built in accordance with plans, which has adversely affected him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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) 

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to which Mr X raised objections. Before the Council made a decision, the neighbour submitted amended plans increasing the height of the development. The Council considered the proposal and granted planning permission.
8. In February 2023 Mr X raised concerns of a potential planning breach with the Council. The Council investigated the concerns and stated the height would be lowered; however further site visits confirmed the height was in line with the approved amended plans. Therefore, the Council decided it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action as there had not been a breach of planning control.
9. I recognise Mr X remains dissatisfied. However, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made. I am satisfied the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary and it was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide there had not been a breach. We cannot question the merits of decisions which have been properly made.
10. Mr X says he was not told about any changes to the plans. The Council says it did not consult residents about the amended plans as the case officer decided the changes to the proposal would not have a significantly detrimental impact. I understand Mr X disagrees, but even if the Council was at fault for not telling him about the changes to the plans, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice. The Council properly considered the acceptability of development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The case officer decided the development would not have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. The Council also explained further in response to Mr X’s complaint why the height of the development is acceptable.
11. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the amended plans. The Council has accepted there was an error on the decision notice as the original plans were referred to in error. However, as the Council properly considered the acceptability of the amended plans, I cannot say this mistake caused Mr X any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman