Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for an extension to the side of a property close to her house and garden. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process to warrant us investigating. We will also not investigate the Council’s internal complaint process where we do not intend to investigate the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X’s rear garden and house wall back on to the side of another property. That property was the subject of a planning application for a first-floor side gable end extension, the elevation closest to Ms X’s property.
2. Ms X complains the Council:
1. did not deal with her objections to the application in a fair and unbiased manner;
2. failed to follow their own planning policies and procedures;
3. did not respond properly to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:

• the information provided by Ms X;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• relevant online planning documents and maps.
• Ms X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X considers the Council failed to deal with her objections in a fair or unbiased way. The planning proposal changed during the application process, reducing the height and scale of the original plans. Ms X made her objections three times to the Council, including after the final plans had been received.
7. The officer’s report summarised Ms X’s objections and responded to them. Officers considered them as part of the normal planning process. They took the view her objections did not give them grounds to sustain a refusal of the application as finally submitted. Officers disagreed with Ms X’s view. But that is not evidence of unfairness or bias within the planning process. There is not enough evidence that Ms X’s objections were dealt with in an unfair or biased way to warrant us investigating.
8. Ms X says the Council did not follow the appropriate policies when considering the application. She refers to two planning documents, adopted by two different local planning authorities (LPAs) in England, as examples of guidance on separation distances and amenity impacts. But those policies, and any others created and adopted by LPAs in other areas of the country, are not relevant to this authority’s planning decisions. They are guidance for planning decisions in each LPAs’ specific areas, not nationwide policies for all LPAs to follow. I realise Ms X may consider this planning decision would have been different had there been one of these other policies in place in her location. But a council is not required to consider the planning guidance produced by other LPAs when deciding applications in its own area.
9. The Council officer’s report set out the relevant policies of this authority which fell to be applied to the planning application. They state some emerging policies could not be given significant weight because they had not been adopted by the Council at the time of the decision. Officers took account of and quoted from the Council’s adopted policies as part of their consideration when reaching their view that the development should receive permission. They noted the development would have some impact on the light reaching Ms X’s property. But they took the view the massing and overshadowing impacts were not sufficient to support a planning refusal, particularly after the reduction in height and scale introduced by the final amended plans.
10. We cannot go behind a council’s decision unless there has been fault in the process followed which, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. I realise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Ms X complains the Council did not respond properly to her complaint. She is concerned the complaint was not referred to an officer who was suitably independent from the complaint issues. We will not investigate a council’s internal complaints procedure where we do not intend to also investigate the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. We consider that to do so is not an effective use of public funds. That limitation applies here, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process followed by the Council to warrant us investigating;
• we will not investigate a council’s internal complaint process where we do not intend to investigate the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman