Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council decided his neighbour’s planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered and determined the application under delegated officer decision‑making powers, or of the Council misleading Mr X that the planning committee would decide the application, to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives adjacent to a property where the owner sought planning permission for a development, including a single storey side extension to an existing garage.
2. Mr X complained the Council:
1. failed to consider the application and his objections at the planning committee;
2. misled him to believe the application would be considered by the committee;
3. gave permission to a scheme which is an over-development of the neighbour’s property.
3. Mr X wants his objections to the application to be discussed by the planning committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• considered relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s main complaint is that the Council did not decide his neighbour’s application at the planning committee. It was instead decided by planning officers using their delegated decision-making powers, so Mr X’s objections were not considered by the committee.
8. The evidence I have seen shows the Council explains the different decision‑making processes for planning applications on its website. It states:

• not all applications go to planning committee;
• most planning decisions are made by the Planning and Development Manager, under 'delegated powers';
• the committee meets to consider applications because they are major or contentious schemes and outside of officer delegation, or they have been ‘called-in’ by a ward member. (‘Calling in’ is where an elected ward councillor for the area where the development is proposed asks the council to consider the application at the planning committee.)

9. The Council’s planning policy and process allows for applications to be dealt with by officers using their delegated powers. Mr X’s neighbour’s application for residential extensions did not qualify under the Council’s criteria to be automatically referred to the committee, and there is no indication the ward councillor called it in. There is not enough evidence that it was fault by the Council to decide the application using the delegated planning officer decision process instead of referring the matter to the committee.
10. Mr X says the Council misled him into believing the application would be considered and decided by the planning committee. But I have not seen evidence the Council misled Mr X in this way. It might be that Mr X assumed the committee would consider and decide the application. But it is not fault by the Council if Mr X was unaware the application was to be considered using the officers’ delegated decision-making process.
11. Mr X says the Council should not have granted permission for the neighbour’s application. He considers the scheme is over-development and is particularly concerned about the additional overshadowing of his garden by the extension to the neighbour’s garage.
12. For us to go behind a council’s decision, we would need to see evidence that there has been fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, would have resulted in officers making a different decision.
13. The evidence shows the Council’s planning process took account of Mr X’s written objections. The officer report summarised his objections and responded to the material planning matters, including overshadowing. Assessing the information before them, they took the view that the scale, design and location of the addition to the garage would not have sufficient adverse impact on Mr X’s property to justify them refusing the application. That is a professional judgement decision they were entitled to make.
14. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process here to warrant us going behind their decision and investigating. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
15. The outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to refer his objections to the planning committee for its consideration. But the Council has granted the planning permission, which has brought the planning process on this application to an end. We cannot order a council to rerun, in whole or part, an already-decided planning application process. This means we cannot achieve the remedy Mr X seeks, which is a further reason why we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered and determined Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application to justify us investigating;
• there is not enough evidence the Council misled Mr X into believing the planning committee would consider and decide the application;
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman