Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a garden structure near the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly assess a planning application for a garden structure to the rear of a neighbouring property, as it did not give due consideration to his concerns.

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.

(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 in relation to the second and third bullet points, we also consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected a decision the Council has made.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• 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 Mr X is very unhappy the Council approved his neighbour’s planning application.
7. But, with reference to paragraphs 2 to 4 above, 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 whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision, and consider whether any fault we may find is likely to have affected the planning application outcome.
8. Here, the delegated officer report considers: health and safety issues associated with the roofing material getting hot; loss of light; and the character and appearance of the structure. But I note Mr X says it does not specifically address his concerns about fumes/odour emitted when the plastic roof gets hot, or the noise when rain falls on the roof.
9. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the outcome is likely to have been the same even if these issues had specifically been mentioned in the delegated report. In reaching this view, I am mindful of the observations in the report about the domestic scale of the structure, its open-sided form, and that these materials are commonly used in similar residential developments without any health or environmental concerns arising.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that any fault is likely to have affected the planning application outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman