Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application for an outbuilding. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for an outbuilding and associated works at a nearby property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for this building. But the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it is wrong. Rather, our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made and look for evidence of fault that causes a significant injustice to the individual complainant. In other words, if there is a procedural or administrative error in the way the Council determined a planning application, we consider if this fault is likely to have influenced the planning decision.
6. I find there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the planning decision here, to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I mindful that:
• the case officer visited the site, so would have been aware of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
• measurements of the proposal can be taken from the scaled drawings/plans.
• objections to the proposal are summarised in the officer report.
• the officer report assesses the relevant material planning considerations, including the change in ground levels, design and visual appearance, residential amenity, and flooding. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgements on these matters, even if Mrs X disagrees with them.
• although the Council accepts the report does not include the town council’s objections, the planning issues it raised have still been considered, so I am satisfied this error has not affected the application outcome.
• if Mrs X believes the development is causing flood damage to her property then that would be a private civil matter.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that any fault in the way the application was determined has affected the planning outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman