Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development which will next to the complainant’s property. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to his home.
2. He says the Council ignored development which obstructs the safe line of sign from his driveway. He also says the Council dismissed his objections granted planning permission based on lies and false information.
3. Mr X wants the Council to force the developer to remove the ‘offending’ wall and fencing. Or, to pay him significant compensation to include covering the cost of moving his drive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X objected to a planning application for a development next to his home. A summary of his objections are listed in the Planning Officer’s report. A councillor also represented his objections at the planning committee meeting.
8. The Planning Officer’s report shows that the Highways Authority ( also part of the Council) had no objections to the application.
9. , Members decided to follow the officer recommendation and granted permission.
10. Mr X complained to the Council about various aspects of its handling of the application. The Council addressed these issues under its complaints procedure but it did not uphold the complaint.
11. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The case officer report made specific reference to Mr X’s property and Members were able to listen to his objections to the application when he spoke in person. It was acknowledged that the proposed development would impact upon neighbouring properties but not to a degree which would warrant refusal of the application. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he would like a thorough service review and to understand the evidence to show the Council assessed the application properly and that it had not been prejudiced by the decision on an earlier application. However, while Mr X’s wish is noted, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, with no evidence to suggest fault affected the outcome of the application.
13.  

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate @’s complaint because @

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman