Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a planning application for a building. There is not a significant enough injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is complaining that East Riding of Yorkshire Council wrongly approved a neighbour’s planning application for a building.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the applicant inaccurately claimed on the planning application not to be an elected member of the Council. The applicant is a member of a different council, not East Riding of Yorkshire Council. There is nothing to indicate the applicant was a member of East Riding of Yorkshire Council at the time of the application. It was East Riding of Yorkshire Council, not any other council, that decided the application. So, there is no fault by Council on this point.
6. Mr X suspects the building will be used as a dwelling. This claim is speculative, and we can only consider claimed injustices that have already happened, not possible future injustices. The Council had to consider the application as it was and could not refuse permission based on speculation the building would be used differently to what the application said. So, there is no substantive injustice to Mr X on this point.
7. Mr X says the building will damage his property’s value. Councils cannot refuse planning applications based on potential impact on property values. So, there is not enough evidence of fault here for us to investigate.
8. Mr X says the Council disregarded inaccuracies in the application including about where the applicant lived and the ownership of the land. Any such inaccuracies would not in themselves be grounds to refuse planning permission. Moreover, in the context of an application for a building that will not in itself disadvantage Mr X significantly, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate these points.
9. Mr X believes the building will have a negative impact on the view from his property. Nobody is entitled to a particular view beyond their own land. This was not a ground for the Council to refuse planning permission. The Council may consider the impact on general amenity. However, a building of this size around 20 metres from Mr X’s property, does not constitute a significant enough injustice to warrant us devoting time and public money to investigate. So, we will not investigate this point.
10. Mr X says the current plot was available for residents to rent garage space and the new development will diminish this option. However, any rental agreement can legitimately be ended for various reasons. Mr X has private off-street parking. So, there is not a significant enough injustice to Mr X on this point.
11. Mr X wants his complaint to result in the revocation of the planning permission and changes in the law. We cannot achieve that.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not a significant enough injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman