Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled planning applications for works to the property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was not notified of a planning application for extensions to the neighbouring property, and says the proposal is contrary to planning policies.

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 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.
• information about the planning applications relating to the neighbouring site, on the Council’s planning website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development.
6. 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. We can only criticise a council’s decision if there is clear evidence of fault in the way it has been made which, but for that fault, would have led to a different decision. 
7. I find there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• The Council provided database evidence that it created and dispatched the neighbour notification letters for the 2022 application. There was no requirement for these to be sent by recorded delivery, and we cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering them.
• There was no statutory requirement for the Council to notify neighbours of the later, non-material amendment application.
• The case officer conducted a site visit.
• The officer’s report for the 2022 application considers the impact of the extension on Mr X’s amenity and the character/appearance of the area. The officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement on these issues, even if Mr X disagrees with them.
• The proposed first-floor ,side window is shown on the approved plans as being obscure glazed and top-opening. This type of window would not normally require planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the applications have been decided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman