Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process and decision to grant permission for a new heating system in a neighbouring Grade II Listed property. Even if there was fault which affected the Council’s planning decision, the outcome does not cause a significant enough personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a Grade II Listed property which was the subject of a planning application seeking permission for the installation of a new boiler. He complains:
1. the Council’s planning officer report says neighbours had been notified of the application by letter, when that had not happened;
2. the planning officer failed to take account of his and others’ objections to the application;
3. the planning officer failed to refer the public objections to the Council’s heritage officer.
2. Mr X says smoke and condensation from the boiler flue gives the impression the building is on fire, which he considers is detrimental to the building. He wants the Council to apologise for acting with dishonesty and incompetence. He also wants the Council to refer the matter back to the applicant, explaining the decision was made without full consideration of the objections. Mr X considers the use of the building’s existing chimney would resolve the issue of the impact of the new flue.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s planning officer report says it sent notifications by letter to Mr X and other neighbours of the development property. Mr X says neither he nor his neighbour received one. The Council does not confirm whether it sent the letters, or whether the reference to them in the report is wrong. But in any event, this possible error in the report had no bearing on the planning process because Mr X made his objections against the application within the normal notification period.
6. The planning officer report summarised the objections to the application received by the Council, which demonstrates the officer considered those concerns before deciding the application. It is not clear whether the planning officer referred the objections to the Council’s heritage officer.
7. But even if there was fault which affected the planning decision and outcome here, we will not investigate the matters further. This is because the injustice claimed by Mr X from the planning decision is not significant enough to justify us investigating. Mr X may not like the look of the discharge from the flue serving the new boiler, believe it to be detrimental to the house, and find this annoying. But that is not a sufficient personal injustice to him to warrant us pursuing the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because even if there was fault in the planning process which affected the Council’s decision, the planning outcome does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman