Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a development next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity and the wider area when it approved his neighbour’s planning application.

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.

(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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. But the Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
6. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Government guidance encourages Councils to approach planning decisions in a positive way and to seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. The Council was therefore entitled to ask the applicant to submit amended plans, if it felt this could address concerns about the ‘45-degree rule’ and inaccuracies in the original plans.
• The case officer visited Mr X as part of his assessment of the proposal.
• Objections to the application are summarised in the officer’s report.
• The officer’s report goes on to consider the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s amenity and the character of the area, and addresses the points raised in the objections.
• It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
• Party wall issues, boundary encroachment, and any damage caused during construction are all private, civil matters.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman