Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. It is not yet possible to determine if the complainants have suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X have complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. They say the proper processes were not followed and the Council failed to consider the impact the development would have. Mr and Mrs X say the development has not been built in line with the approved plans.

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 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the proposed drainage for the site, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr and Mrs X’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not be overbearing or have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and loss of light. The case officer consulted the Council’s drainage officer, and no objections were raised. The Council also explained further in response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint why the development would be acceptable.
9. I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr and Mrs X say the Council has failed to consider the Human Rights Act. The Ombudsman cannot decide if a council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether a council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Councils will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council considered the impact the development would have on Mr and Mrs X.
11. Mr and Mrs X have complained the development is not being built in line with the approved plans. The Council has said its enforcement investigation is ongoing and a retrospective application has been submitted to regularise the development. As the Council’s enforcement investigation has not concluded, it is not yet possible to determine if Mr and Mrs X have suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault in this regard. They will have the opportunity to comment on the retrospective application and can return to the Ombudsman with a new separate complaint if they remain unhappy once the retrospective application has been decided or once the Council has finished its enforcement investigation.
12. Mr and Mrs X have raised concerns about the information published on the Council’s website. They say comments made by other residents were inappropriate and their personal information was published. But the Council redacted the comments once Mr and Mrs X contacted it about their concerns. If Mr and Mrs X are unhappy with how the Council handles their data, they can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as it is the appropriate body to deal with these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. It is not yet possible to say if Mr and Mrs X have suffered injustice in relation to any alleged fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman