Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning applications. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decisions or of significant injustice to Ms X from her concerns about the accuracy of the plans.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council did not take account of her comments about the accuracy of her neighbour’s plans and failed to properly consider her objections.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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 considered information provided by Ms X and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and considered her comments.

Back to top

Background

6. Ms X’s neighbour applied to develop their property through several planning applications between 2020 and 2021. Ms X objected to the first planning application and told the Council her neighbour’s plans were not accurate but the Council granted planning permission for the proposal. Her neighbour later made a new application but Ms X still had concerns about the accuracy of the plans. The Council visited the site and asked the neighbour to amend the plans, which they did. However, having considered the impact of the development the Council decided the proposal was acceptable. It therefore granted planning permission for it.
7. Ms X is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her objections and about the way the planning officer investigated her concerns.

Back to top

My assessment

8. As a result of additional work carried out by Ms X’s neighbour on their property, which was not part of the initial planning application or permission granted by the Council, plans submitted for the second application were incorrect. But this issue was resolved when Ms X’s neighbour submitted amended plans and by the planning officer’s visit to their property to view what had already been built. It has not therefore caused Ms X significant injustice.
9. When determining an application for planning permission the Council may only consider certain issues which are relevant to the planning process. These are referred to as “material planning considerations”. I have reviewed the planning officer’s reports for the neighbour’s applications and these show the Council considered the material planning considerations in reaching its decisions to grant planning permission. I cannot therefore say the Council’s decisions are wrong.
10. Ms X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her 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

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decisions or of significant injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman