Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X is unhappy about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council has not acted in line with its policies and should not have granted planning permission for a development at a neighbouring property. Mr X says the development has affected the privacy at his property. He complains that the development differs to what was set out in the planning application. Mr X is also unhappy about the way his complaint has been handled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also used publicly available documents on the Council’s planning portal.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint relates to an outbuilding at a neighbouring property where planning permission was granted.
6. Mr X had the opportunity to object to the planning application but chose not to do so. The planning officer’s report shows the Council, in making its decision, considered relevant planning matters including relevant national and local policies, loss of light, privacy and scale. It decided the effect not to be significant enough to justify refusing permission.
7. On the evidence I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.
8. We are 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though a complainant may disagree with it.
9. We understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its judgement to decide the development was acceptable.
10. We will not consider how the Council has handled Mr X’s complaint about the matter as we are not investigating the substantive issue.
11. We have only considered matters relating to the planning application process. Should Mr X wish to complain about the Council’s investigation of any alleged breach of planning control, he may do so separately through the Council’s complaints procedure and then complain again to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr’ X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman