Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development which overlooks his property and impacts on his privacy. He says he did not receive consultation letters from the Council so was unable to comment on the application.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We are 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.
5. When consulting neighbours about planning applications councils can send notification letters or put up site notices. In the case of Mr X’s neighbour’s application the Council confirms it sent notification letters but Mr X says he did not receive one.
6. The Council has evidence to show it printed the letters but Mr X says this is not proof the letters were posted or that anyone received them. There is however no requirement for the Council to prove the letters were received and evidence to show they were printed is sufficient, on balance, to show it sent them.
7. In any event, the Council has explained that it considered the impact of the neighbour’s proposed development on Mr X’s property, including in terms of loss of privacy. The planning officer’s report, which provides a record of the decision-making process, does not explain in detail why the proposal is acceptable but the Council has given a detailed explanation in response to Mr X’s complaint. The primary issue for the Council is that Mr X’s neighbour could have chosen to develop their property without the need for planning permission by using their rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015, as amended. This created a “fallback” position against which the Council had to assess the proposal. It was not therefore the case that the Council could simply consider the increase in overlooking between what existed at the time of the application and what the application proposed. It instead had to consider what the neighbour could do without the need for planning permission and it felt that the impact of this was largely the same as the impact from the development proposed in the application.
8. The Council therefore felt it had no choice but to grant planning permission for the proposal and its reasoning on this point is clear and rational. I have seen no evidence of fault affecting the decision and we cannot therefore question it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman