Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of the occupant of the neighbouring land.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s processing of a planning application for development by the occupant of neighbouring land. He also considers the Council’s consultation for the application was inadequate. Mr X says he was unaware of the application so did not comment on it. He claims the planning permission has caused conflict between him and the neighbour as the neighbour has now started work to carry out development on his land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s processing of the neighbour’s application and its consultation for it meets the requirements set out in the relevant legislation and the Council’s policies and procedures. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in its approach.
6. However, even if there was evidence of fault on these points we could not say they caused the injustice Mr X claims. This is because the injustice stems from the actions of the occupier of the neighbouring land, rather than any actions by the Council in dealing with their planning application.
7. A grant of planning permission shows the Council considers the development acceptable in planning terms. This does not mean the applicant has the right to build what has been proposed and approved on land which they do not own.
8. Mr X essentially claims encroachment/trespass by the neighbour and we cannot hold the Council responsible for this. We cannot therefore recommend the Council adopts the changes Mr X has suggested.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of the neighbour, rather than the fault he alleges in the way the Council processed and consulted on their planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman