Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning applications. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Councils actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his neighbour’s planning application leading to an erroneous decision to grant planning permission.

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.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to extend their property. The Council approved this. They then submitted a revised application to increase the ridge height and the rear dormer.
6. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to correctly identify the applicants.
• Ignored the fact the plans failed to show the existing flue for a wood burning stove.
• Dismissed his concerns about the risks to his family’s health due to severe social and sensory needs.
• Failed to consider his warnings that issues arising from the planning applications would lead to communication breakdown and tension with his neighbour; and
• Failed to anticipate the tension with the neighbour would escalate leading to police incidents and his request that a Community Protection Notice be issued.
7. The names of the application and agent are taken from the application form it received. It is the responsibility of those completing the application form to ensure it is correct. There is no duty on the Council to take specific steps to verify this information. If Mr X considers his neighbours have committed fraud, it is for him to raise his concerns with the police should he wish to do so.
8. The flue for the neighbour’s wood burner has been in situ since at least 2019. It is permitted development and does not form part of the recent planning applications which were for a loft conversion. The Council acknowledges the flue is not shown on the submitted plans. However, it also confirmed the Planning Officer would have been aware of the flue when they visited the site. And that it did not have any impact on the decisions on the proposals for the loft conversion.
9. It is expected that plans accurately reflect the built arrangements on site. However, it is clear the Council was aware of the new proposals and the proposals do not alter the existing arrangement for the flue.
10. The Planning Officer’s reports on the proposals include a summary of the objections received, including those made by Mr X.
11. The report considers the impact of the scheme on Mr X’s home. I understand Mr X is concerned that the specific sensory needs of his family have been impacted by this extension. However, the personal circumstances of neighbours such as sensory needs are not material planning considerations.
12. Mr X says the Council:
• Overlooked the foreseeable communication between Mr X and his neighbours.
• Ignored his warnings of disputes between him and his neighbours; and
• Failed to anticipate escalations of tension between him and his neighbour as evidenced by police involvement and Mr X’s request for a Community Protection Notice.
13. However, as stated above, such matters are not material planning considerations. Also, the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the Council breached the Human Rights or Equality Acts. Such matters are for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning applications to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman