Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting retrospective planning permission for a building next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault, and we will not look at any concerns about the associated complaints process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council granting retrospective planning permission for a building at the neighbouring property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We can 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)
4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy about the Council granting planning permission for the building.
7. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Rather, we look at whether there was fault in the way it made the decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question whether it should have reached a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council was entitled to ask the neighbour to submit a retrospective planning application when the breach of planning control was identified.
• The Council has explained why it took longer than normal to determine the application.
• There was no requirement for the case officer to visit neighbouring properties.
• The objections to the application are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• Loss of property value and loss of a view are not material planning considerations.
• The Council’s Environmental Health team visited the site and had no objections to the application.
• The assessment section of the officer’s report considers the objections raised, and the impact on visual and residential amenity. The Council was entitled to reach professional judgement that the building was acceptable, even if Mrs X disagrees with that view.
• Conditions have been imposed on the permission which restrict the use/impact of the building.
9. As we are not investigating Mrs X’s substantive concerns about the handling of the planning application, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any associated parts of her complaint about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it determined the application, and we will not look at any concerns about the associated complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman