Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Nor will we consider the part of the complaint about the complaint’s process as we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed:
• to fully consider his objections to his neighbour’s planning application
• to consider his right to clean air and to enjoy his patio
• to acknowledge errors in the drawings provided by the application
• to allow objectors time to comment on final drawings; and
• failed to meet its agreed response targets.
2. He wants the Council to:
• visit his home to show they understand his objections and have taken them into account
• review all objections and comment correctly; and
• revoke planning permission

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour to extend their property, alter windows and demolish a garage. The Council notified neighbours, including Mr X. The Planning Officer visited the site. Mr X objected on the following grounds:
• loss of light/overshadowing
• loss of privacy/overlooking
• bulk and massing
• noise and disturbance
• errors on the submitted plans
• errors in the parish council minutes
• the application fails to meet the Council’s design guidance and local plan policies
7. The Council received revised plans for a smaller development. It notified neighbours. Mr X objected highlighting errors as well as concerns about the impact from the development on his amenity. The Planning Officer sought further amended plans to resolve any inconsistencies in the drawings/labelling.
8. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes:
• a description of the proposal
• a summary of the objections received
• details of national and local policies
• consideration of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, including Mr X’s home
9. The report details the planning officer’s views and explains why they consider the development will not harm Mr X’s sunlight, daylight, privacy, or outlook. And as the property will be a domestic residence, it is not likely to cause a noise disturbance to neighbours.
10. A senior officer agreed with the Planning Officer and the application was approved under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
11. Mr X complained the Council had not fully considered his objections. He also disagreed with the location of the boundary on the neighbour’s drawings. The Council advised the neighbour is satisfied the boundary shown on the plans is correct. It confirmed boundary disputes are not a planning matter. Plus, it assessed all the information relevant to the application before decided there was “no detrimental impact on living conditions such that would warrant refusal of (the) application”
12. The Council also confirmed:
• The parish council did not object
• It was aware some of the drawings were inaccurate, but considered they were sufficient to determine the application
• There is no statutory duty to inform neighbours of minor amendments which reduce scale of proposed development.
13. As it considered it had correctly considered the application, there is no mechanism to withdraw the planning permission.
14. Mr X escalated the complaint, stating the head of planning should not have responded to his complaint. He repeated his concerns about the accuracy of the applications and failure to fully consider his objections.
15. The Council responded stating the interim head of the planning department responded to his original complaint as she is an experienced town planner. It stated there was no change to its original response.
16. 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. In this case, the Council visited the application site, set out the relevant policies, considered Mr X’s objections and noted the errors in the drawings. It decided it had enough information to decide to approve the planning application. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
17. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. There is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which we would be able to investigate.
18. Mr X also complains about the Council’s failure to meet its targets when responding to him. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to him, it confirmed it has made changes to the way it deals with complaint to reduce future delays.
19. We do not investigate council complaint-handling alone where we are not investigating the core issue causing the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. And we do not Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s failure to meet its response deadline.
20. The key outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to reverse the planning decision. This would require the Council revoking the permission granted over a year ago. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve this key outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve his neighbour’s planning application
• we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s failure to meet response deadlines; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman