Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council’s consideration of her neighbours planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council approved her neighbour’s planning application without confirming the property boundary. Miss X says the Council did not give her with regular updates and did not help when her neighbour damaged her tree.

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))
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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s neighbour applied for retrospective planning permission for a wooden gazebo. Miss X approached the Council and informed it the gazebo went over her boundary. Miss X asked the Council to let her know when the planning application was live so she could object.
7. Miss X says the Council did not give her notice of the planning application going live so she did not get the opportunity to object. She says the Council approved the application without considering her boundary dispute.
8. The Council says Miss X was informed when the application was submitted and that a site notice was displayed. While I acknowledge Miss X would have preferred clearer guidance about when to submit comments, the information shows she was aware of the application. It was reasonable for her to monitor the Council’s planning portal for updates.
9. The Council have also explained to Miss X the boundary dispute is a civil matter between her and her neighbour, and that land ownership is not a requirement for planning approval.
10. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise. Material planning considerations do not include private rights and interests in land. This means council’s do not need to settle boundary disputes when deciding planning applications.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to approve the planning application while there was an ongoing boundary dispute. The Council were correct to advise Miss X the boundary dispute is a civil matter with her neighbour.
12. Miss X also complains her neighbour damaged her tree when constructing the gazebo. The Council’s tree officer inspected the trees and concluded the gazebo would not have a significantly harmful impact. The Council advised Miss X any damage caused to her property by her neighbour would also be a civil matter.
13. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made. I have not seen evidence of fault in the tree officers assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman