Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an outbuilding next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that any fault in the decision-making process is likely to have affected the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council approving her neighbour’s retrospective planning application for an outbuilding. In particular, she says it used incorrect measurements, and justified the development by making unreasonable comments about the height of her own fence. Mrs X says she has experienced high levels of stress and anxiety due to the increased overlooking from the development, and as a result of the Council’s delayed and inadequate complaint responses.

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
• 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. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and information about the case officer’s site visits.
• information about the planning application, as available 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 Council granting planning permission for her neighbour’s outbuilding.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a 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 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. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has affected the planning application outcome, so we will not investigate the matter. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The case officer visited Mrs X’s property and took photographs, as well as visiting the application site, so was able to assess the impact of the development in situ. Therefore, whilst the Council acknowledges a discrepancy of 5cm in the height quoted in the case officer’s report, I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that this has affected the decision.
• The case officer’s report summarises the objections received by neighbouring residents.
• The case officer’s report goes on to assess the character/appearance of the outbuilding, and its impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The complaint responses also elaborate further on these points. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on these material planning considerations, even if Mrs X disagrees with the conclusions reached.
9. As we are not investigating the main part of the complaint about the planning application decision, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any associated concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has affected the planning outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman