Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning decisions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the injustice suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has unfairly allowed development of a neighbouring property.
2. He says the resulting development impacts his enjoyment of and access to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s neighbour carried out a development at their property without permission. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with the planning breach and said it delayed enforcement, did not follow due process when assessing planning applications and did not follow the gas safety code.
8. When a breach was reported, the Council invited Mr X’s neighbour to make a retrospective application to regularise the development. This was approved. I understand that Mr X was unhappy about how long this took. It can often take time to complete enforcement investigations. As the property is not Mr X’s main residence, the injustice suffered as a result of any delays is not significant enough to justify our investigation.
9. Mr X complained about aspects of the planning process. The Council considered all the issues raised by Mr X, and others who commented on the application, as well as expert advice and relevant policies. It made changes to the plans based on this information. Gas storage design is not a material planning issue. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to determine the application by delegated authority.
10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
12. As the Council properly considered the planning application, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.
13. If Mr X is concerned there is an ongoing statutory nuisance following completion of works, he may complain to the Council’s Environmental Protection team. He can return to the Ombudsman if he is unhappy once he has received its final response.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the injustice suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman