Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application and its decision to grant permission. We will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says insufficient consideration was given to parking issues when the Council granted planning permission for her next-door neighbour’s application to extend their property. She says she was not given sufficient information prior to the Council planning meeting at which she spoke and that she did not get long enough to make all the points she wanted.

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
• 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, including the Council’s response to her complaint. I also watched the recording of the Committee meeting where the decision to grant permission was taken. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X’s next-door neighbour submitted a planning application to develop their property, including changes to the garage which adjoins Ms X’s property.
6. While normally the type of application submitted would have been decided by officers under delegated powers, the application was called in by a councillor and was instead determined by the Council’s planning committee which, after hearing from both Ms X and the councillor who supported her, voted to follow officer recommendation and granted permission.
7. Unhappy with the decision taken, Ms X complained to the Council about its decision, its impact on her and more generally about the national planning system which she considers does not provide sufficient support for those affected by grants of planning permission.
8. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and explained the difference between those matters which are material to planning decisions and those, like Party Wall and trespass issues, which are civil matters between neighbours and not matters the Council takes into account in determining applications. It noted the officer report and the planning meeting had considered at some length the objections she had raised, including matters relating to parking, and it found no reason to uphold her complaint.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to us.

Assessment

10. While I understand Ms X is disappointed with the decision taken by the Council, 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 application. She and the councillor who had called in the application spoke at the meeting in accordance with normal procedures and committee members were aware of her objections when they made their decision.
11. Ms X’s concerns for those she calls “victims” of planning applications, ie those like her who are affected by neighbouring developments, relate to wider criticisms of the planning system currently in operation throughout the country and while she may disagree with it, any changes to it will be for Parliament to make.
12. In responding to my draft decision Ms X says she is unhappy that, despite the Committee being shown a photograph of a car parked across part of the pavement and so in breach of its own policy, and that when her neighbour’s extension is built forward of the existing building line it will push cars further onto the pavement, officers still recommended granting permission and members followed that recommendation. However, the policy for parking provision Ms X has referred to is a guide and not mandatory and noted in it is consideration given to whether cars can be parked elsewhere. Members were aware of the concerns raised about parking but decided to grant permission and we cannot review the merits of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman