Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council approving her neighbour’s planning application for extensions, and the impact the construction work had on her property.

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 Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and the case officer’s report on the application.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy about the Council granting planning permission for her neighbour’s extensions and about the impact of the construction works.
6. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against, or overrule, the Council’s decision on the planning application. Rather, our role is to review the way the Council makes its decisions, and to consider if any fault in that process is likely to have influenced the decision to grant permission.
7. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the application to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• At the pre-application stage, the Council advised the applicant that the proposed first-floor, side windows would require obscure glazing, and this is shown on the plans subsequently submitted with the application. A condition has also been imposed on the planning permission to this effect.
• The Council says a notification letter was created for Mrs X’s address. We cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering the letter.
• Mrs X was able to object to the application and her comments are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• The officer’s report goes on to assess the proposal against the relevant planning policies and material considerations, including the impact on Mrs X’s amenity. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the scheme was acceptable, even if Mrs X disagrees with that view.
• Issues such as damage to property or encroachment are private civil matters between Mrs X and her neighbour.
• National planning guidance advises conditions should not be imposed on planning permissions which duplicate a requirement for compliance with other regulatory regimes e.g. noise nuisance.
• Following commencement of the development, the Council has visited the site and checked it is being built in accordance with the approved plans.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman