Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council delayed in dealing with his neighbour’s retrospective planning application. He says that as a result he suffered a loss of privacy over the summer months and could not fully enjoy his property.

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.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the planning application documents. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour carried out unauthorised development in their garden in early 2020. Mr X says he did not realise the impact of the development until he began to spend more time outside during the warmer months; when he did, he reported the matter to the Council.
6. Mr X’s neighbour applied for retrospective planning permission to retain the development and Mr X complains it took too long to deal with the application. He says the delay benefitted his neighbour and meant that he could not enjoy his garden over the summer.
7. The Council’s records show it received the neighbour’s planning application in June 2020 and refused the proposal in November 2020. Applications should usually be decided within eight weeks but in this case it took the Council more than 20 weeks. It is unlikely we could hold the Council responsible for the full period of delay claimed but even if we could, it is unlikely we could say it caused Mr X significant injustice.
8. Planning decisions are not immediate; a local planning authority must carefully consider a proposal before reaching a decision and in the event they refuse a retrospective application, the council must then consider whether to take formal enforcement action. If the council decides it is expedient to take action it may issue an enforcement notice and an enforcement notice carries a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
9. There is no suggestion of delay by the Council in its handling of the enforcement investigation which followed its refusal to grant planning permission to Mr X’s neighbour. But had the Council decided the original planning application within eight weeks, and applying the timeline which followed, Mr X’s neighbour would have had until approximately 9 October 2020 to appeal against the Council’s enforcement notice. The Council could not therefore have reasonably required compliance with the notice until after this date.
10. While Mr X clearly suffered some loss of privacy during the summer months this was the result of his neighbour’s unauthorised development and the law and processes for dealing with unauthorised development, rather than the Council’s delay in determining their planning application.
11. Mr X also disagrees with the Council’s view on part of the development but this is a matter of professional judgement. While Mr X disagrees with the Council this is not evidence of fault. The issue has also not caused Mr X significant injustice as the Council refused the application and has issued an enforcement notice requiring Mr X’s neighbour to remove it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman