Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and related planning enforcement issues. There is insufficient evidence that any fault in the determination of the application has affected the outcome. The complainant’s concerns about the handling of the planning enforcement issues are premature, as they have not been considered under the Council’s complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Mrs X raises a number of issues about the way the Council has handled a planning application and associated planning enforcement matters related to 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. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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)

4. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X.
• information about the planning applications at the neighbouring site, on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is very unhappy about the development of the neighbouring property.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice. 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 or outcome for the complainant.
8. With regard to the Council’s consideration the planning application in late-2024, I consider there is insufficient evidence that any fault has affected the planning outcome here, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Mrs X’s objections are summarised in the delegated report.
• decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policies and material considerations may pull in different directions. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
• The delegated report considers the impact of the development on the street scene/surrounding area, on neighbouring properties, and on nutrient neutrality. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on these matters, even if Mrs X disagrees with the conclusion reached.
• The Council’s complaint response explains that planning permission was not, in any case, necessary for the second access/driveway as it benefitted from deemed consent. The complaint response also explains that residential space standards do not apply to this type of application.
• Planning and building control operate under entirely separate regulatory regimes. So, we would not normally expect an officer from one service area to identify issues/problems about the other service area.
9. We have not investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of various planning enforcement issues, including:
• Failure to discharge conditions attached to a previous planning permission
• A window being replaced by a door.
• The erection of a scaffolding balcony.
• Raising of land levels.
• The residential use of an outbuilding.
10. With reference to paragraph 4 above, this is because Mrs X does not appear to have specifically raised these matters with the Council via its complaints process. I consider it reasonable to expect her to do so. Mrs X can pursue a new complaint with the Ombudsman once she has received the Council’s final response on those issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handing of the planning application because there is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the outcome.
12. The complaint about the Council’s handling of other planning enforcement issues is premature as they have not been considered under the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman