Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application. He says the Council’s decision-making process was flawed and breached his Human Rights.
2. Mr Y says the development has a significant impact on his property and the Council’s actions have devasted his family’s life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating

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

4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y’s neighbour made a planning application to extend their property. The Council consulted with residents living in neighbouring properties, including Mr Y.
8. Objections to the proposal were considered by the planning officer, and a clear explanation as to why these were not upheld were recorded within the planning officer’s report.
9. The planning officer considered relevant policies and legislation in approving the planning application, including equalities and Human Rights.
10. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached Human Rights as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
11. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of Human Rights if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the impact the development would have on Mr Y.
12. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. I acknowledge that Mr Y is unhappy about the planning application being approved, but the Council properly considered the application, including the impact on neighbouring properties. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development was acceptable. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant us investigating further.
14. Mr Y’s neighbour also submitted an application for a certificate of lawful development. Mr Y says the Council split the development into separate applications to avoid assessing the full impact. The Council needs to consider the applications it receives. An application for a lawful development certificate is to determine if the proposal is permitted development and can be built without needing to apply for full planning permission. The Council would not need to assess the impact on neighbouring properties to decide if a proposal is permitted development.
15. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman