Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting retrospective planning permission for works to a garden close to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly assess a retrospective planning application for works carried out to a neighbour’s garden, and believes the application should have been determined by the Planning Committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X,
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website, and
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted retrospective planning permission for his neighbour’s development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our role is to consider if there is evidence of fault in the way the decision was made.
6. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing Mr X’s complaint further. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• A site visit was conducted before the application was determined. The officer would have therefore seen the partially constructed wall, the proximity of neighbouring buildings, and the character/appearance of the surrounding area.
• The objections from residents are summarised in the case officer’s report. The volume of opposition to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing planning permission.
• The officer’s report goes on to consider the relevant material planning considerations, and reaches a professional judgement on whether the proposal is acceptable in planning terms. This is a judgement they were entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
• The Council’s constitution did not require the application to be determined by the Planning Committee.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman