Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a new dwelling to the rear of his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new dwelling to the rear of his property. He is concerned about the impact of the new dwelling and believes the Council failed to properly consider objections to the proposal. He also complains the Council delayed in notifying neighbours that the application would be decided at a committee meeting.
2. Mr X wants the Council to withdraw its grant of planning permission and for an independent body to review the case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
6. The planning officer’s report summarises the objections from local residents to the proposal but explains why, in their view, the proposal is acceptable. The application went to the Council’s planning committee and the committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation. I have seen no evidence of fault in the process and I cannot therefore question the judgement of the planning officer or the planning committee.
7. While Mr X complains he did not have sufficient notice of the committee meeting he confirms he was aware of it in advance and the minutes of the meeting show two objectors spoke against the proposal. It is clear both the planning officer and the committee were aware of the level of objection but the question was whether the Council considered the proposal was acceptable and it decided it was. We could not therefore say any delay in notifying residents about the meeting, which the Council says was the result of delays in the postal system in any event, wrongly affected the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman