Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence to conclude fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not suffered an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning applications, particularly in relation to what materials have been approved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. So, 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Before we start an investigation into a complaint, we need evidence to show the individual complainant was caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions or inaction. In the context of a planning complaint, this means we need evidence to show that but for any alleged fault, it is likely the planning outcome would have been different.
5. I note Mr X’s point that annotations on the proposed plan say the front and side elevations of one of the extensions would be constructed from stone to match the existing house, with cladding to the rear elevation.
6. However, I also note the application form and planning statement only refer to cladding as the proposed material for the extensions, and (setting aside the annotations highlighted by Mr X) the drawings appear to show cladding used on all elevations. Furthermore, the officer’s report says the proposed extensions are to be constructed with cladding, and explains why this contrasting material is considered to be acceptable. It is therefore my view the annotations on the proposed plans are incorrect, and it was always the intention that cladding would be used on all elevations. The Council determined the application on this basis.
7. With reference to paragraph 4 above, if the plans had been correctly annotated to say cladding on all elevations, I am satisfied the planning outcome would be the same. As such, the Ombudsman will not start an investigation because there is not enough evidence to conclude fault by the Council has caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome here, so he has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman