Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Delayed giving him notice of his neighbour’s planning application;
• Wrongly approved the planning application;
• Has not regulated his neighbour’s building works; and
• Communicated with him poorly.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,

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

3. We 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 Xand the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council did not meet its duty of a 21-day period of consultation to receive comments about a proposed planning application. Mr X provided three objections which were considered by the Council in its decision. Any delay did not cause significant injustice to Mr X and I will not consider this matter further.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the planning application. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact to his property. The documents show the Council did consider Mr X’s points and made amendments to the proposed building plans to comply with policy and guidance. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and therefore we cannot question the outcome.
8. Mr X says the ongoing building works are not compliant with the building plans. The Council has conducted site visits and has decided there is not a breach of building control. It has also reminded the applicant about the process if they want to change their plans. There is not enough evidence of fault to investigate further.
9. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about poor communication if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman