Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application at a site near the complainant’s property. 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 that fault has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s retrospective planning application for a shed and boundary fencing. In particular, he says:
• The Council did not notify him about the planning application, despite living opposite the site and being the person who reported the unauthorised works;
• The Council did not properly assess the application against its planning policies, as it did not explain why non-matching materials were acceptable in this case;
• The officer’s report refers to issues which are not material planning considerations; and,
• The Council based its decision on contradictory, flawed and factually incorrect information.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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;
• images of the fencing and shed from an online ‘street-view’ tool; and,
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s shed and fencing. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and consider whether any fault in that process is likely to have affected the planning outcome/decision or caused Mr X a significant injustice.
6. I do not consider the alleged fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome here or caused Mr X a significant injustice, so the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint. In reaching this view, I mindful that:
• Mr X was able to submit his objection to the application before it was determined;
• The case officer conducted a site visit and saw the shed and fence in-situ, so was able to assess the impact of the proposal on the area and residential amenity;
• The officer’s report explains why the non-matching materials of the shed are considered to be acceptable;
• Whilst the officer’s report refers to the applicant’s apology for carrying out the unauthorised works, I do not see that this has influenced the subsequent weighing-up of the planning merits of the case;
• The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the development was acceptable in planning terms, even if Mr X disagrees with that judgement; and,
• Although Mr X might not like the appearance of the fence and shed, having seen ‘streetview’ images of the development online, it does not, from our perspective, cause him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman