Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission for a neighbouring property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that the Council did not properly take into account his objections to a retrospective planning application for a large dwelling near him. He says that the Council previously took too long to enforce his previous complaint about the building.
6. A retrospective planning application was submitted for the dwelling and Mr X objected on the grounds of likely excessive noise, flood impact. loss of privacy and light pollution.
7. The Planning Officer noted these objections and responded to each in the planning report. The Planning Officer noted that Environmental Protection and Building Control considered the boiler would not be a noise nuisance.
8. The Planning Officer noted that, whilst part of the garden could be seen by the property, it was not a main amenity area of the property and could not justify refusal on this basis.
9. The Planning Officer noted that the floodlights proposed for the garden did not form part of the planning application but the previous planning permission provided that any light installation be submitted for prior approval so no further conditions needed to be added.
10. The Planning Officer noted the retrospective planning application did not differ from the previous approved planning permission and so the impact on flooding had previously been assessed and approved. The patio would need a separate flood activity permit.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
12. The Planning Officer considered all objections to the planning application. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered the planning application.
13. The Council granted the planning application and so any delay in the consideration of the retrospective planning application provides no injustice as the planning application was approved in any event.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman