Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning processes and its decision to approve a neighbour’s planning applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s planning approval processes and its decision to approve a neighbour’s planning applications. He also says the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action when the build was not being constructed in accordance 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council approved a planning application submitted by one of Mr X’s neighbours for an extension to their home.
6. Once the build started, Mr X complained to the Council that it was not being built in line with the approved plans.
7. The following year, the neighbour submitted a second planning application. The case officer report noted the applicant appeared to have started to build a different extension to that previously approved and that this second application sought to regularise the unlawful works.
8. The Council consulted with neighbours including Mr X and conducted a site visit as part of its planning process. Mr X submitted representations and the Council considered Mr X’s comments. The report set out how the Council considered the effect of the proposed amended plans on Mr X’s amenity. It decided the new application was acceptable and approved the application.
9. Mr X says the Council did not allow long enough consultation periods during both applications, refused to answer his questions during the planning process and did not take enforcement action when the extension was not being built in accordance with the approved plans.
10. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s processes to warrant an investigation. There is no legal requirement for a set period for consultation. Mr X submitted comments during the second application process and these were appropriately considered as part of decision making.
12. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, and councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
13. Although it appears the applicant did not initially build in line with the approved plans, the applicant submitted a new application and the changes have now been formally considered and approved in the second application. Mr X’s representations and the impact of the proposal on his amenity was considered as part of this process. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman