Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s planning officer failed to visit his property as part of the process to determine his neighbour’s planning application. He also says the officer failed to properly consider the impact of his neighbour’s proposal on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though a complainant may disagree with it.
6. While Mr X believes the planning officer should have visited their property there was no requirement for them to do so. It was a matter of judgement for the officer to decide if they needed to view the development site from Mr X’s property and they decided they did not. In any event, Mr X’s agent provided photos of the site from his property which clearly showed the impact the development would have.
7. The planning officer considered the points raised by Mr X’s agent but decided the proposal was acceptable. This is not to say the officer felt it would have no impact on Mr X’s property; rather they considered the impact was not so significant that it warranted refusal. Mr X clearly disagrees with the officer’s judgement but this is not evidence of fault. The planning officer was impartial in their assessment of the application and reached a decision based on their professional judgement. I have seen no evidence of fault affecting the decision and the law does not therefore allow us to question it.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman