Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application and associated planning enforcement investigation. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his objections to his neighbour’s planning application and has not taken any formal action against the neighbour for breaches of the approved plans. He says cooking fumes from his neighbour’s property include air pollutants which he believes are affecting or may affect his health and that of his wife.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council granted planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s extension more than two years ago. It has more recently investigated Mr X’s reports of possible breaches of the approved plans and considered whether the cooking fumes from his neighbour’s property amount to a statutory nuisance. It found the neighbour’s development complied with the planning permission and that the cooking fumes did not amount to a statutory nuisance. It therefore decided not to take any further action.
6. Mr X’s main concerns relate to a window which faces towards his property. He initially complained about the impact of the window on his privacy but more recently he has focused on the use of the window to vent cooking fumes towards his house. However it is clear from the information Mr X provided with his complaint that there was previously an extractor fan on the same wall and there is a tall fence on the boundary between the properties which obscures almost all of the window.
7. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. I understand Mr X is concerned about the window but I have seen nothing to show it causes him significant injustice. We cannot say an opening window would materially increase the transfer of cooking fumes and pollutants to his property more than a powered extractor fan would and his photographs show there is no potential for overlooking between the properties with the fence in place. It would not therefore be a good use of our resources to investigate the matter further.
9. If Mr X believes cooking fumes from the neighbour’s property are affecting his health he may wish to consider making a claim against his neighbour for personal injury. We cannot recommend a remedy for this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman