Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s neighbour’s planning application. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains her neighbour’s planning application was approved by the Council contrary to its planning guidance. She says there was no mention in the officer report that part of the proposal was allowed under permitted development rights and windows have been installed which do not meet the approved plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about its handling of a neighbour’s planning application for development which negatively impacts her home.
7. The Council responded to the points she raised and in relation to comments made by the officer after permission had been granted that part of the proposals could have been carried out under permitted development rights without the need for formal planning permission, the Council confirmed this was the case but apologised that an oversight meant reference to this point had not been made in the officer report.
8. It explained that planning guidance is just that and that each application is decided on its merits. It accepted there had been some inconsistency in relation to window openings between the application in question and an earlier application submitted by another neighbour. However, it noted that a current outstanding non-material amendment application for the site concerning changes to the windows would address overlooking concerns with the inclusion of restricted openings.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. While Ms X’s disappointment with the decision taken here is clear, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its outcome. The Council has apologised that mention of the permitted development rights had not been made in the officer report and it has acknowledged while there was an inconsistency between the neighbour’s application and another highlighted by Ms X, the relationship between the two sets of properties were not the same and the outstanding application for the site will address Ms X’s concerns about window restrictors.
10. As an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome, we will not pursue the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman