Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for a neighbour’s outbuilding.

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.

(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. Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of retrospective planning permission for a neighbour’s outbuilding. He says that the building is not fully screened by a hedge and the material used in inappropriate.
6. I note that Mr X made these points in his objection letter. The Council also had the benefit of photographs of the building and that a site visit took place.
7. The Planning Officer’s report refers to these objections and, given that the building was in place at the time, I consider that the Planning Officer was fully aware of its size, position and overall look when considering the effect upon neighbouring amenity. The Planning Officer concluded that the impact of the building, in relation to overlooking, loss of light, privacy and visual amenity was not sufficiently negative as to warrant refusal.
8. I am satisfied that the Planning Officer had sufficient evidence and information before them to ensure that the decision was made without fault.
9. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman