Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development at a property close to Mr X’s. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a variation to a planning permission granted for development at a property close to his. He says there were errors, a misinterpretation of guidance and subjective views expressed by officers which have resulted in a development which negatively impacts his property.

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 and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of a planning application which sought to regularise work carried out at a property close to his which did not match that approved under an earlier application. The Council granted permission for the changes which Mr X said negatively impacted his home.
7. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted that the first stage of its complaints procedure should have been dealt with by an officer unconnected with the case. It said that guidance would be circulated about how formal complaints should be allocated in the future to maintain suitable independence.
8. It also acknowledged that it had erred because the officer report did not make reference to Mr X’s own extension. However, it explained that while it should have been mentioned, the planning history of his property was not of direct relevance to the application which only concerned the differences between what had been granted permission originally and what had been built. It accepted that the increased height of the development would have an impact on Mr X’s property but that it had decided this was not sufficient reason to warrant refusal of the application.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and review the merits of council decisions. We cannot question their decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the decision taken in this case, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman