Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to allow a bat roost tower to be built on a site adjacent to his property. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to consult with him when it allowed a planning amendment for a bat tower to be built opposite his home on a site being developed for new housing. He sees no reason why the tower cannot be moved further back on the site and away from his view.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Following the Council’s grant of planning permission for a new housing development on a site close to Mr X’s home, it subsequently treated as a minor amendment the inclusion of a bat roost tower at the front of the development. This meant the Council did not consult on the amendment and Mr X complained to the Council about this.
8. In response, the Council explained that having taken into account the orientation of his property, the proposed location of the tower and that there would be no loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing impact, it treated the amendment as a minor amendment and so did not consult on it. It further explained that the loss or interruption of a view is not a material planning consideration.
9. Mr X believes the tower could safely be relocated towards the rear of the site but the bat specialists have determined that the planned location is suitable. While Mr X may disagree with the decisions taken by the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
10. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he does consider the bat roost to be large and overbearing and questions why it has been placed where it has when it could have been placed away from his property. However, these are issues for the Council to determine, having considered the impact on Mr X’s amenity and consulted with the bat specialists.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman