Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered and decided his neighbour’s planning application. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Other complaints about the planning processes are premature and it is reasonable for him to raise them with the Council first.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a property whose owner built an outbuilding. He complains the Council:
1. failed to follow the proper process when deciding his neighbour’s planning application for the development;
2. failed to consider objections made against the application;
3. made a pre-determined and biased decision due to its lack of planning enforcement resources.
2. Mr X wants a payment to contribute towards the costs of his screening the outbuilding from his garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. The law 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s neighbour installed the outbuilding and applied for a certificate of lawfulness, to confirm the development did not require planning permission. The Council opened an enforcement investigation which concluded the building needed full planning permission. Officers determined the structure as built was not covered by the ‘permitted development’ system, which sets the scale, location and type of developments not requiring planning permission. To seek regularisation of the development, the Council’s enforcement officers invited the owner to submit a full retrospective planning application. The owner submitted this as requested. If the owner had not done this, it would have been for the Council’s enforcement officers to consider what further action, if any, they should take regarding the unauthorised development. The receipt of a valid application meant the Council’s enforcement process ended. It then fell to the Council’s planning officers to consider it.
8. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
9. Mr X complains the Council did not follow the proper planning process or take account of the objections it received. The Council wrote a planning report on the retrospective application. The report incorrectly refers to Mr X’s address using the wrong house number, but it is clear where the officer’s consideration of the new development’s impact relates to Mr X’s property. The officer recognised some of the development’s rear elevation would be visible over the existing boundary fence from Mr X’s property. They determined this would not be so overbearing or cause such loss of light to Mr X’s house or garden to justify a planning refusal. The officer noted the impact on two of Mr X’s ground floor rooms, a garage and a utility room. They decided the effect of the development on light to these non‑habitable rooms through existing obscure glazing would not warrant a refusal. The officer’s report also summarised the objections received and responds to those which raise material planning issues.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process here, including the consideration of the objections received, which would have altered the decision and warrants an investigation. Prior to the retrospective planning application, officers followed proper planning and enforcement processes to seek regularisation of the development as built. Officers assessed the information, including objections to the development, and applied the relevant policies and procedures when reaching their professional judgement decision on the full planning application. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on the planning application. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. The outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a contribution towards screening he wants to install to hide the currently visible part of the outbuilding. We cannot order councils to make such payments where there is insufficient evidence of fault in its planning process which led to a grant of permission for a development, even if a complainant does not like the look of the part of the development they can see. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks here is a further reason why we will not investigate.
12. In his complaint to us, Mr X says he believes the Council’s decision on the retrospective planning application was ‘pre-determined’ and ‘biased’. He also alleges the Council granted the permission because planning enforcement is a slow process and its enforcement resources are stretched. Mr X says the pressure on the enforcement process was noted in Council messages he has seen. Mr X has not provided evidence of these serious allegations and they did not form part of his complaint to the Council. We would not normally investigate complaints to which a council has not first had appropriate opportunity to respond. Such issues would be premature for us to consider. It would be reasonable for Mr X to put these allegations to the Council and give it the chance to answer them. This is because of their seriousness, and because officers may provide him with a satisfactory response. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’ complaint as the issues raise are premature.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making processes here to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks; and
• the allegations of pre-determination, bias and avoidance of enforcement are premature and it is reasonable for him to raise them with the Council first.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman