Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, and the Council has provided a satisfactory response to other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case relating to the installation of an additional window at a neighbouring property. In particular, X says the Council has admitted to multiple procedural failures including:
• an "internal error" that caused his initial report of a planning breach to be ignored;
• providing misleading/incorrect information to his MP;
• admitting the case officer failed to mention the window in the report to the ‘Planning and Rights of Way Panel’ meeting;
• assessing the privacy impact without ever visiting his property to see the impact from his side.
2. X also complained about delay in providing the Stage 2 complaint response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)
5. 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

6. I considered:
• information provided by X and the Council.
• information about the neighbour’s planning applications, as available on the Council’s website.
• the minutes of the ‘Planning and Rights of Way Panel’ meeting, which determined the second application.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate X is very unhappy the Council has decided not to take any further action in relation to the additional window installed at the neighbouring property.
8. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decisions, and consider whether any fault we may find is likely to have affected the planning outcome.
9. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome here, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the case officer for the second application visited the application site and took photographs. There was no requirement for the Council to visit X’s property when determining the application, or when considering the expediency of taking enforcement action.
• although the additional window was not referred to in the officer’s report for the second application, the plans and photographs presented to the Planning Panel did include the window.
• even if the additional window was not covered by the second planning permission, it benefits from permitted development rights.
• even if the window did not benefit from permitted development rights, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it was not expedient to pursue enforcement action, given the window’s location at ground-floor level and set away from the 1.8m fence along the boundary with X. I see no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision.
10. The Council has also apologised:
• for failing to acknowledge X’s initial report of the alleged breach of planning control; and,
• for incorrectly referring to works to the first floor when responding to a related enquiry from X’s MP.

I am satisfied this was an appropriate way to address these parts of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue them further.

11. Finally, and with reference to paragraph 5 above, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the 1-week delay in providing the Stage 2 complaint response, where we have decided not to investigate the substantive underlying issues being complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome.
• the Council’s apologies are a satisfactory response to other parts of the complaint; and,
• we will not look at the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman