Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a retrospective application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, complained about undue bias to a retrospective planning application submitted by planning consultants who previously worked for the Council. He also makes the same complaint about a further application to vary previously imposed planning conditions.
2. Mr J says he cannot use and enjoy his garden because of overlooking by strangers because his neighbour lets the converted garage as an Airbnb property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr J, including the Council’s responses to his complaint
• planning application information on the Council’s website
• minutes of the Planning Committee meeting; and
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a retrospective planning application for retention of works and fencing to his neighbour’s rear garden.
6. Mr J objected on the grounds of negative impact on his property.
7. The Case Officer prepared a report on the scheme which includes:
• Relevant local and national planning policies
• Objections from third parties including Mr J, the local Councillor, and the Parish Council
• An assessment of the proposal; and
• The Planning Officer’s reasons for recommending approval
8. The presentation to the Planning Committee included photographs showing images of Mr J’s property from the application site and vice versa. Mr J spoke to the Committee outlining his objections, as did a Councillor.
9. Having considered the information provided and Mr J’s objections, the Committee decided to approve the application.
10. A person who has undertaken unauthorised development has the opportunity to obtain planning permission after the event.
11. Mr J says the Council was biased because the applicants are planning consultants who previously worked for the Council. The Council, as Local Planning Authority, is required to consider the valid planning applications it receives. This includes applications from current and previous employees, Councillors and consultants.
12. The Council confirmed the applicants have not worked for it for some years. The application was allocated to a Planning Officer who does not know the applicants and did not work at the Council when they were employed.
13. The application was considered in public by the Planning Committee. I have seen no evidence of the bias claimed by Mr J. Nor have I seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective planning applications and the subsequent application to vary conditions.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman