Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s neighbour’s planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate a complaint about the Council’s complaints process as we do not consider any failings in the process alone to cause significant personal injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs Y, complains about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application for a balcony which impacts her privacy.
2. Mrs Y also complains:
• Officers are biased towards the applicants, failed to follow the correct procedure, and cannot provide reasons for its decision
• Breached personal data and defamed her; and
• Failed to follow the complaints procedure

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y complained to the Council about its decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application for a balcony.
8. Officers visited the neighbour and inspected the site. They also viewed the balcony from neighbouring gardens. They concluded that part of the structure was not built according to the approved plan. During a second site visit the Council instructed the neighbours to stop work because of the unauthorised build.
9. The neighbours submitted a retrospective planning application. The Council publicised the application and Mrs Y objected as did other members of the public.
10. In December, the Council’s planning committee accepted a petition objecting to the balcony, signed by 26 members of the public. Committee minutes show the petition was noted.
11. In January, the retrospective application was considered by the Committee. Minutes show the Members referred to the petition received in December. They also considered the Planning Officer’s detailed report which includes:
• 42 photographs of the development and surrounding views
• Plans
• Drawings; and
• Objections received
12. The report explores Mrs Y’s concerns. Following consideration and debate, the Planning Committee approved the application.
13. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
14. The Planning Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The Officer decided that, on balance, having considered all the objections, the proposal met the requirements of the relevant local policies. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
15. The planning committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Mrs Y may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
16. Mrs Y also complains the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure, and that the Officers involved in the complaint had a conflict of interest. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

17. The final part of Mrs Y’s complaint is about a breach of data protection because the Council published information on its website. It is not unreasonable to expect Mrs Y to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider them.
18. Allegations of defamation are a civil matter, and it is for Mrs Y to seek legal advice on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective planning application
• we do not consider any failing in the complaints procedure alone causes a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation
• it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to complain to the Information Commissioner about breaches of data protection; and
• we cannot consider concerns about defamation which are a civil matter.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman