Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. We are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation. And we are unlikely to find Mr X has been caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had granted planning to a neighbouring property with agricultural conditions.
2. He said the Council should remove the permission and put the land back to agricultural use.
3. Mr X says the granted planning permission has devalued his own property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:
• 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. The relevant planning application on the Council’s website.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained to the Council that it had granted planning permission for an annexe to a neighbouring property. He said the permission was unlawful because it increased curtilage and added to an historical breach.
10. In its response the Council said the permission for the annexe was given in line with the Local Plan and previous planning permissions for the property did not prevent it. It said the historic planning permission would not be revisited as part of the annexe application. Further it said curtilage was addressed in the officer’s report and before approval was granted.
11. The Council said that if Mr X had evidence of non-compliance with the granted planning, he should report this to planning enforcement.

Analysis

12. The planning officer’s report shows how the Council considered the application and its consideration of the issues which were relevant to the planning process.
13. The report summarises the objections to the proposal including concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties. The planning officer determined it would not result in any harmful impact on neighbours, and this was a decision they were entitled to reach.
14. 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.
15. The annexe is single storey, not next to Mr X’s property and is screened from his property by vegetation. It is unlikely we would find he has been caused any significant injustice by any Councill fault in its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint; we are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation and we are unlikely to find he has been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman