Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a planning application for development near a listed building. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to carry out development which has a negative impact on a listed building. Mr X says the development also has an impact on his privacy and overshadows part of his garden.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has taken account of the impact of the development on the listed building. Its consideration is set out in its case officer report and includes the Council’s consideration of comments form local people and its historic environment team. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s conclusions but in the absence of fault we cannot criticise the Council’s decision.
7. The Council cannot refuse planning permission due to the proximity of a development to a party wall. This is a civil matter between neighbouring landowners and may be resolved under Party Wall legislation. The Council has no role in mediating between landowners. Therefore there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered this issue.
8. Mr X did not raise issues regarding overshadowing or privacy within his objections to the application. However, the impact of the development would not be significantly worse than the previous situation in terms of matters the Council can consider when granting planning permission. The development is only slightly higher than the wall which divides the gardens meaning there would be no significant change in overshadowing to Mr X’s garden. There is also no significant change in the impact on Mr X’s privacy. The development does not change the ability of neighbours to look towards his property from the rear of their garden. Therefore there is no evidence of fault in the Council failing to consider these matters within the case officer report as the impact on Mr X’s property is not significant and he did not raise these issues in his comments on the planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman