Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for a site next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of their neighbour’s planning applications.

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. (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 Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s most recent complaint responses.
• information about the two planning applications, available on the Council’s planning website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for the development next door. But 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
5. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the neighbour’s applications to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• in response to concerns raised about the original plans for the first application, the Council sought amendments to reduce overshadowing and overlooking.
• councils are under no duty to formally enforce every breach of planning control, and government guidance advises them to act proportionately. In this case, the Council invited the neighbour to submit a second planning application, so it could consider whether the amendments to the original permission were acceptable.
• despite their being no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties during the determination of a planning application, the Council visited Mr X when assessing the second application.
• Mr X’s objections are summarised in the delegated reports for both applications, and the reports go on to assess the impact of the proposals on his amenity. The case officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the proposals were acceptable in planning terms, even if Mr X disagrees with the decisions reached.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman