Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an unauthorised building at his neighbour’s property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of an unauthorised development at an adjoining property. Mr B says the Council invited a retrospective planning application which it then approved. Mr B says the Council did not give proper consideration to the impact on his home and he feels the Council has shown bias towards the applicant.

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 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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and have considered planning records available on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council was entitled to ask Mr B’s neighbour to put in a retrospective planning application for this unauthorised development.
7. This allows a local planning authority to consider in detail whether an unauthorised development is acceptable in planning terms.
8. It is one of a range of options open to a local planning authority when investigating a breach of planning control. This approach taken by the Council is not evidence of fault. It gave Mr B the opportunity to put in comments on the development and suggest changes which would reduce the impact on his property.
9. The Council’s consideration of this planning application is set out in a case report which clearly assesses the impact of the development on the amenity of Mr B’s property. The Council has explained its decision that the impact on Mr B’s property is acceptable. Some of the issues Mr B has complained about are civil matters which the Council could not consider when making this decision.
10. I have not seen any information to suggest this decision was affected by fault. This means we cannot question the Council’s judgement that the development is acceptable in planning terms.
11. So, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman