Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. He says the extension will have an overbearing impact on his property and affect his view.

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, 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)

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 and the Council’s response. I watched the Council’s recording of the committee meeting, shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to extend his property in 2020. Mr X objected to the proposal as he believed it would have a significant impact on his property. Several others also objected.
6. The case was referred to the Council’s planning committee with a recommendation by the planning officer that it be approved. The committee listened to comments both for and against the proposal and viewed several photographs of the application site from the gardens of affected neighbours. They then voted unanimously to approve the application.
7. Mr X says the Council wrongly described aspects of the development, made false statements about screening between neighbouring properties and the application site and left out an important comment made by a statutory consultee. He also complains the Council used misleading photos taken from the neighbouring properties and did not use others which he considers more accurately showed the level of screening between the properties.

Assessment

8. As explained at Paragraph 3 the law does not allow us to question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong. We can only consider whether there was fault in the way it was reached.
9. I have reviewed the planning officer’s report for the application and viewed the recording of the committee meeting and I have seen no evidence of fault in this case.
10. Mr X disputes comments made about screening between the application site and neighbour properties but the committee clearly considered this point and asked questions about it before deciding the impact was acceptable. It is not for us to question the Council’s view or to say that it would or should have been different, had the officer used different photos as part of their presentation to the committee.
11. Mr X also disputes the description of part of the development used by the planning officer but the plans clearly set what was proposed and were shown at several points during the meeting. The planning officer’s report explains why the design and impact of the proposal is acceptable and this explanation takes into account the distance and relationship between the application site and neighbour properties. Mr X believes the design should have been altered to reduce the impact of the proposal but the Council must decide the application before it. Had it felt the design was unacceptable it could have voted to refuse or defer the application to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise their plans.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman