Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on behalf of Ms X, Mr Y and Mr Z about the Council’s handling of a planning application, including its communications and complaint handling.
2. Mr B says the position of fencing on a new development causes problems for the residents. He says the Council has not helped resolve this or provided the information needed to support legal action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
6. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

7. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. In October 2025 we asked the Council to consider the complaint through its complaints process, however by August 2026 this remained incomplete. I consider the Council has had enough opportunity to investigate and reply, therefore I will consider the matter.
11. In 2023 the Planning Inspectorate approved outline planning permission for a development. I have no remit to consider any dispute about this decision.
12. Some matters were reserved for the Council to decide upon later. This included landscaping which includes boundary treatments; the material used for any wall, fence or boundary.
13. The Council publicised the reserved matters application on landscaping and invited neighbours to comment. The Council did not have to explain how the proposal may affect them.
14. The Council issued a report setting out its considerations and approved the application.
15. The Council did not have to provide further details of the fencing beyond that publicised and considered as part of the reserved matters application. Any further dispute over the provision of data is better raised with the Information Commissioner.
16. The Council has no role in private matters such as boundary disputes and it has no remit to consider whether the position of any fencing on the boundary will inconvenience neighbours in relation to the positioning of their own fencing. These are private matters. That the Council has not assisted in this is not evidence of fault.
17. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the reserved matters planning application to justify an investigation.
18. And I will not investigate the Council’s communications or complaint handling around this matter because any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman