Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision-making process and grant of permission for a development to the rear of her property. There is no injustice to Mrs X from a second application for the same site, because the Council refused it permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process or decision for the first application to warrant investigation. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. Mrs X’s complaint about planning contraventions on the development has not been put to the Council, so is premature.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives near a house whose owner was granted planning permission by the Council to develop the property. She complains the Council:
1. failed to correctly notify her of the planning application;
2. failed to properly scrutinise the application because it received no objections;
3. failed to thoroughly and consistently apply the planning design guide;
4. failed to take proactive action about planning contraventions on the development;
5. delayed in dealing with the complaint.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s notification process meant she lost her opportunity to object to the application. She says the matter has been a constant source of massive stress. She has felt ignored, dismissed and unfairly treated by the Council. She says the development will have a great adverse impact on her enjoyment of her house and garden. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise, and recognise the errors in its process. She wants compensation for the £1,000 cost of tree screening she planted to reduce the impacts of the development. She also wants the Council to act in response to the reported planning contraventions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s property shares a rear boundary with the development site. The planning applicant sought permission to extend their house in 2020. The Council granted the permission in early 2021. The applicants then submitted a second amended application. Mrs X says she became aware of the second application and the earlier granted one at this time, when she got a notification letter. The Council refused the second application in spring 2021 and the applicants appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which dismissed the appeal in summer 2021.
7. Given the Council’s and Planning Inspectorate’s refusals of the second application, there is no permission for that proposed development. There is no injustice caused to Mrs X by the way the Council dealt with and determined the second application, or by any impact of the development as proposed in that application, because it was refused.
8. Mrs X says the Council failed to correctly notify her of the first planning application. The Council’s policy at the time of that application was to use site notices to notify residents of applications. There is no dispute that a notice was placed in Mrs X’s road to advertise the application. The Council’s policy on notification was compliant with national guidance. Its subsequent decision to use site notices along with notification letters does not mean the previous process it used was fault. It is unfortunate Mrs X did not see the site notice but that was not due to fault by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s notification process here to warrant investigation.
9. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly assess the planning application because it received no objections. She also says the Council did not thoroughly and consistently apply its own planning design guide. Planning authorities are required to assess applications for planning harm to surrounding properties irrespective of whether they receive objections or other comments. Mrs X’s key concern is the overlooking and loss of privacy caused to her property by the development. The Council considered this issue when making its decision to grant the permission. Officers took the view that the 37-metre separation distance between Mrs X’s property and the proposed development meant they could not sustain a refusal of the permission for privacy or overlooking reasons. The design guidance requires a minimum separation distance of 21 metres between facing elevations. Mrs X refers to other aspects of the design guidance which she considers have not been followed or correctly applied, such as size and placement of windows. Officers determined the separation distance, which is 16 metres greater than specified by the guidance, meant other such design issues did not give them reason to refuse the application on overlooking or loss of privacy grounds. That is a decision they were entitled to take. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making here to warrant an investigation.
10. We may only go behind a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. I realise Mrs X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. There have been delays in the Council’s handling of the complaint. Its second stage response was due in May 2021. Mrs X chased that response in July 2021 then brought her complaint to us in summer 2022. We have sought that second stage response from the Council but it has not been forthcoming. However, we do not investigate councils’ internal complaints processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core matters which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here. We will draw the Council’s complaint-handling to the attention of relevant officers, but we will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
12. Mrs X says there have been planning contraventions on the development site which she says she has reported to the Council but it has not acted. Mrs X may believe the planning applicant is not building the development in line with the permitted plans. This is a complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement process, which is separate from the process used to determine planning applications. There is no evidence Mrs X has formally complained to the Council about planning enforcement matters during the development’s construction. We will not investigate where a matter has not been raised with the council and it has not gone through its internal complaint procedure first. Such a complaint is premature for us to consider. If Mrs X wishes to pursue this enforcement issue, she may wish to put it through the Council’s complaints process. If she is not satisfied with the outcome of that process, she may then wish to bring the complaint to us. If we did receive a further complaint on this matter, we would consider whether there is sufficient evidence to show it caused Mrs X and her family a significant personal injustice which justified investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is no injustice to her from the second planning application for a development to the rear of her property, because the Council and the Planning Inspectorate refused it permission; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s notification process or its planning decision-making process and grant of permission for the first application; and
• we will not investigate the Council’s complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint; and
• the allegations of planning contraventions on the site have not been the subject of a complaint to the Council, so any planning enforcement complaint is premature.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman