Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to approve planning applications. It is too late to complain about the first application. We are unlikely to find evidence of procedural fault in the consideration of the second application. No decision has been made on the remaining application; therefore, any injustice is speculative.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, complains about the Council’s decisions to approve his neighbour’s planning applications.
2. Mr J also complains the Council delayed in responding to his complaints.
3. Mr J says the Council’s decision will have a negative impact on the value of his property. He wants compensation for the upset, distress, and impact on the quality of his life the Council’s actions have caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. In 2017, Mr J’s neighbour applied for planning permission to extend their property. The Council approved the application in 2018. Any complaint about this decision is therefore late and the restriction explained at paragraph five applies.
10. Mr J was aware of the application and approval, and I have seen no reason to exercise discretion and investigate any concerns about the planning approval granted in 2018.
11. Following reports of breaches of the planning permission granted in 2018, the neighbour put in a retrospective application to regularise what they had built.
12. The Council publicised the application and Mr J sent in his objections.
13. A planning officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of the objections received, including those made by Mr J. The report lays out what legislation applies to the case and why the officer made their recommendation. The officer decided the impact on visual amenity is modest. They also noted some impact on neighbour’s amenity; but this is not enough to warrant refusing the application.
14. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
15. Mr J says the Council has not followed its Local Plan. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer made their recommendation. The officer decided the application would not have a significant harmful impact on the area or neighbour’s amenity. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
16. General planning policies may pull in different directions, for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. I have not seen anything to suggests that further investigation is likely to find fault in the way the Council considered the application.
17. The neighbour has submitted another application regarding to built extension. Mr J has objected. This application is yet to be decided. Therefore, any injustice to Mr J arising from this is speculative.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because any concerns about the initial planning permission is late, and we have not seen any good reason to exercise discretion.
19. We are unlikely to find fault in the process the Council followed leading to the approval of the second planning application.
20. Any injustice arising from the third application is speculative.
21. We do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement..

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman