Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to take a strategic view when granting planning permission for applications in residential areas. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council’s failure to take a strategic view when granting planning permission for applications in residential areas means that it has no regard for properties like hers which suffered because development took place at different neighbouring properties at the same time. She also complains about its handling of her complaint about this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

3. 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

4. As a result of noise and disruption caused by large scale building works at two properties adjacent to her home, Ms X complained to the Council.
5. She asked the Council why it had granted planning permission on almost all sides of her property and for its comments on what workmen had said at one of the development sites to the effect that they could do what they liked because of the pandemic and who had verbally abused her. She said she wanted to see evidence of how, as part of the planning decision making process, neighbouring properties are considered to have too much building development going on around them.
6. The Council responded to say its Head of Planning would address her complaint about the volume of development adjacent to her property but explained that there was no legislation which would prohibit the development of individual properties because development had already started at a neighbouring property. It told Ms X that applications are considered on their individual merits with the impact of each development assessed with regard to the amenity of neighbouring properties. It also explained it could not consider her complaint about the behaviour of the workmen.
7. Ms X asked for clarification on the hours work was allowed and whether it was the case that some planning rules did not apply because of the pandemic. She also said she was seeking clarification about future developments and to understand cases where collectively they were causing overdevelopment.
8. In its delayed response, for which it apologised, the Council explained there was no planning restriction on hours of work for the work taking place adjacent to Ms X but that she could report unacceptable working practices to its Environmental Services Team. It said that there were some changes to the planning rules brought about by the pandemic but these did not apply in her case because there was no condition to restrict working hours.
9. With regard to the issue of the scale and rate of development in her area, the Council encouraged Ms X to engage in its Local Plan process and to provide her views on policies to manage future development in its area.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. The Council has correctly explained to Ms X that there are no restrictions about development taking place at one property because development has already started at another neighbouring site. The current planning system requires the consideration of an application based on its individual merits. This is the case even though it may be that residents can be affected as Ms X has been from different developments taking place around them. While the impact on Ms X is noted, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council here.
12. The Council acknowledged and apologised for its delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint and I see no grounds which warrant investigation of this matter.
13. If Ms X is being caused nuisance by unacceptable working practices, it is open to her to contact the Environment Services Team which will consider her concerns.
14. In responding to my draft decision Ms X says she wants the Planning Committee to consider applications so that situations are avoided where neighbouring properties are surrounded by multiple developments for long periods. However, this would require a change to the national planning system, as would providing appeal rights for neighbours who object to an application, and so it would be for Parliament to enact.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman