Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for development next to the complainant’s home. It is unlikely we would find evidence of fault causing the complainant injustice that warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, says there was fault by the Council in its handling of planning applications for development next to his home. In summary, he says this has resulted in unacceptable overlooking. He has paid for a new fence to reduce the impact of this and believes the Council should meet the cost of this.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I have also seen information about the planning applications on the Council’s website and considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I consider the Council has provided a full and appropriate response to Mr B’s complaint. Further investigation would add nothing significant to what we know.
7. The Council received a planning application for development next to Mr B’s home. It had to consider the planning merits of the application and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal.
8. The Council publicised the application and notified local residents. A planning officer set out the planning issues in a report which addressed the issues residents had raised. The report include an assessment of the impact on neighbouring properties including Mr B’s home. Elected Members of the Council considered the report and decided there were no valid grounds to refuse the application and so granted planning permission.
9. The conditions attached to the planning permission required the developer to submit details of landscaping and boundary treatment. The Council found the details submitted acceptable.
10. In considering Mr B’s complaint, the Council found that there were no breaches of the planning permission which require enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council has affected the outcome of the development next to his home. There are no grounds to ask the Council to pay for his fence or provide any other remedy for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman