Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council made a planning decision based on inaccurate information and untruths when it granted planning permission for a neighbour to extend their property. She says issues with regard to an access point and the location of refuse bins on her land were not properly considered and as a result she has suffered months of stress, uncertainty and financial costs and wants reimbursement and either the amendment or revocation of the permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

5. The owner of a property next door to a property owned by Ms X sought planning permission to develop his property. Ms X objected to the application raising concerns about a proposed second access point and the location of his refuse bins on her property.
6. The Council considered Ms X’s objections and sought advice from the Council’s solicitors in relation to the issue of the location of the refuse bins. Having done so, it decided to grant permission. The officer report on the application noted that any issue of trespass was a civil matter between the parties and not a planning matter for the Council to consider.
7. Unhappy with the decision and the Council’s handling of the application, Ms X complained to the Council. It addressed the nine points Ms X had raised and explained why it did not uphold her complaint. While it acknowledged she may have better understood the limitations in the scope of the planning system if the officer report had explained more clearly why the bin storage and access issues could not have been grounds for refusal or enforced changes to the proposal, it said the Council had to determine the application based on planning law. It made clear the fact that a grant of planning permission does not necessarily mean it can be implemented if the applicant does not have the legal right to do so.
8. Dissatisfied with the outcome to her complaint, Ms X complained to us.

Assessment

9. Ms X says she is angry that the officer report implied her neighbour will have free access to trespass on her land and break existing easements and covenants and that no alternatives were explored which would have avoided the need for litigation to preserve her legal rights. However, the report did not imply this and it is not the role of the planning system to resolve legal disputes about land ownership and rights. The dispute between Ms X and her neighbour is a civil one and not a planning matter.
10. The Council considered Ms X’s objections and obtained legal advice but it found no planning grounds to refuse the application or enable it to resolve the bin storage and access issues she had raised. It adequately addressed the various aspects of her complaint and while Ms X may not agree with the decision the Council took, it is not our role to review the merits of it. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X restates her objection to reference in the officer report to a “an existing arrangement” and waste storage facilities being “unchanged”. However, the Council’s Stage 2 response addressed this matter in some detail and its decision on the application does not allow or disallow the applicant to store his bins on Ms X’s land. If she wants to prevent such storage continuing into the future it is open to her to take action and the applicant will have to find a different location for the bins.
12. Ms X mistakenly believes I have made some judgement on the legal advice given by the Council’s solicitor to its planning officer but this is not the case. Ms X also refers to this advice and the differing advice she has received from her own solicitor but she has not differentiated between land rights/civil law and planning law.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman