Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of his 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 Mr X, complains the Council failed to investigate his complaint about poor process and methodology use to grant planning permission for their neighbour’s balcony. He also says Officers have a conflict of interest.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

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. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application for a balcony.
6. Officers visited the neighbour and inspected the site. They also viewed the balcony from Mr X’s garden. 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.
7. The neighbours submitted a retrospective planning application. The Council publicised the application and Mr X objected as did other members of the public.
8. 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.
9. 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
• objections
10. The report explores Mr X’s concerns. Following consideration and debate, the Planning Committee approved the application.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The planning committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
14. Mr X 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.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a retrospective planning application. And we do not consider any failing in the complaints procedure alone causes a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman