Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council made its decision to grant planning permission to a house near his property, its response to out-of-hours noisy construction work, and it not replying to his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process or response to the noise issue to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a property which received planning permission for various extensions. He complains the Council:
1. failed to assess the application against its own policy;
2. failed to undertake a site visit;
3. failed to take account of the differing land levels;
4. made errors in its officer report;
5. failed to enforce against breaches of out-of-hours noisy construction work;
6. failed to reply to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making process officers have followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
6. Mr X says the Council made errors when assessing the development and its impacts on his property. He says officers did not properly apply Council policies on amenity impacts and the development’s design. The Council’s delegated officer report refers to the relevant policies and explains how they considered the extension’s design, scale and location did not cause such amenity impacts to justify a refusal of the application. Officers noted the higher parts of the development would extend along a portion of Mr X’s rear boundary. They considered the extension would result in some amenity impacts on Mr X’s property but determined their level did not warrant a planning refusal.
7. Mr X says officers did not take account of differing levels between his land and the development. He considers this was because they did not visit the site during the planning process. It is not fault for a council’s officers to not visit a planning site. It is for officers to determine what information they require to make their planning decision. They may decide the information they have on file about an application and its location is sufficient for them to determine it without a visit. Officers had information about the land levels when making their decision before them. This included photographs of the development property from Mr X’s property. The officers’ planning report assessed the differences in land levels when making the decision to grant the permission. They determined they did not lead to such impacts on amenity to Mr X’s property from the development’s scale and location to justify them refusing the application.
8. Officers noted the location, scale and design of the development and considered it against relevant policy here. They determined the development did not have such significant adverse effect on Mr X’s or any other nearby properties to warrant a refusal. The decision was a professional judgement officers were entitled to take. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on the level of impact of the development and considers it should have refused permission. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Mr X also says the Council made errors in its planning report. There are some typographical errors in the report but none which cast doubt on its meaning or the decision made. Mr X does not refer in his complaints to specific errors relating to the planning process officers followed other than issues a) to c) in paragraph one above. There is not enough evidence of Council fault on this issue to warrant us investigating.
10. Mr X mentions in his complaint to the Council that officers had not taken action against out-of-hours noisy construction works at the development site last year. The Council says after the first notification of this issue, officers sent standard letters under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to the developer and Mr X in November 2024. It says no further notifications were then received about out‑of‑hours construction noise after that time. We would expect a council, when notified of a construction noise issue, to first advise parties of their responsibilities. This is what the Council did here and it appears this resulted in no further noise problems. There is not enough evidence of Council fault on this issue to warrant us investigating. If Mr X experiences further out-of-hours noise, if the development is not complete, he may make a further report to the Council. It would be for enforcement officers to decide what further action, if any, to take based on the information received.
11. The Council did not reply to Mr X’s complaint. It appears officers in one department who received the complaint did not refer it to other officers to provide a response. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint. However, we will be suggesting to the Council that it advise officers in all departments of its process for dealing with complaints they receive.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman