Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for a building at a neighbouring property.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the neighbour’s planning applications, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for her neighbour’s development. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a planning decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the planning outcome. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if there is clear evidence of fault in the way a decision was made which, but for that fault, is likely to have led to a different decision.
6. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning application decision here, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• permitted development restrictions are not relevant here, as this was an application for planning permission.
• the dimensions of the outbuilding and its position within the plot can be measured from the scaled plans.
• there was no requirement to visit neighbouring properties or to undertake sunpath analysis.
• amendments were made during the determination of the application, which reduced the height of the building and moved it further away from the boundary.
• Mrs X was able to object to the application, and the objections are summarised in the delegated officer report.
• the case officer was entitled to reach their own professional judgement on the impact of the building, taking into account what was observed during the site visit, the information submitted with the objections, and the application plans.
• the report notes Mrs X’s property is on a lower ground level to the application site, but concludes the level of overshadowing caused is not enough to justify refusal of the scheme.
• conditions have been imposed on the planning permission to address noise and flooding concerns.
• Party Wall issues or damage to the shared boundary are private, civil matters.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman