Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve planning applications for a neighbouring property. We have not seen evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before making its decisions. Also, we will not investigate a complaint about a failure to follow the complaint procedure as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to process his neighbour’s planning applications in a fair, accurate and transparent way. He says this invalidated the reports and the impact assessments on which the planning decisions were made.
2. Mr X wants:
• the planning permissions withdrawn
• a review of the Council’s planning process; and
• a review of the planning process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received two planning applications for the house next to Mr X’s home. The first was to:

“..demolish the existing extension, build a single storey rear wrap around extension and change of use of the property to supporting living accommodation for 4 adults with learning disability”

7. The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal which detailed the design of the proposals and a summary of the objections received to scheme, including those made by Mr X. This was presented to the Planning Committee. A neighbour spoke to the Committee explaining their objections, including the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s home. After considering the application and hearing from those for and against the proposal, the Committee voted to approve the application.
8. The Council then received a new planning application for the same extension, but without a change of use. Again, the planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. This included a summary of the objections received, including those made by Mr X.
9. As the proposal was the same as that previously decided by the Committee (without a change of use), the Council decided to decide the application under its scheme of delegation. The Officer’s report lays out the relevant national and local policies. It explains the proposal and the reasons for the Officer’s recommendation for approval.
10. Mr X complains the Council failed to process the planning applications in a fair, accurate and transparent way. He wants the planning permissions withdrawn. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.
11. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
12. From the information I have seen, the approved plans clearly show a courtyard between the original elevation and the proposed extension building. It is clear the Committee and the planning officer were fully aware of what was being proposed. The Council is satisfied the plans are accurate and to scale. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
13. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow its complaint procedure. We will not usually look at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. If we consider that the original complaint is not something that we would in its own right investigate then we will not investigate the complaint about the complaints process. This is because we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications for a neighbouring property. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman