Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for an extension next to the complainant’s home, and its handling of the subsequent complaint. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, and we will not pursue any concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council approving a planning application for an extension at the neighbouring property. In particular, he says:
• his objections and subsequent complaint were not considered with the professionalism or respect that he expected.
• the delegated report was written incorrectly.
• contact has only ever been received when they have chased 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 are satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposed to take in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), 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.
5. Similarly, we cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must assess complaints in a proportionate manner. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the Council did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X, which included his complaint correspondence with the Council.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. 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 whether there was fault in how it made its decisions, and consider if any fault is likely to have affected the planning outcome. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if we are satisfied 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.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence to conclude that fault in the assessment of the application is likely to have affected the outcome, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• councils will notify adjoining neighbours about a planning application and consider any objections submitted, but they would not normally entire into dialogue with neighbours about a proposal. For example, the Council’s site notice says, “due to the high number of comments that we receive, we no longer acknowledge receipt of comments and are unable to enter into correspondence about any issues raised”.
• there is no requirement to visit neighbouring properties when determining a planning application.
• Mr X’s objections are summarised in the delegated officer report. The report goes on to assess the proposals visual impact, the impact on neighbouring residential amenity, and parking provision. Although the report states the incorrect number of total bedrooms that would exist, the property is still able to accommodate the correct number of parking spaces.
• the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide whether the impact of the proposal was acceptable in planning terms, even if Mr X disagrees with the judgement reached.
• each planning application is assessed on its own merits
• if the building works do encroach over Mr X’s property, then that would be a private, civil matter between him and the neighbour.
9. As we are not investigating Mr X’s substantive concerns about the handling of the planning application, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue his associated concerns about the subsequent complaint process. Notwithstanding this, I note the Council’s Stage 2 complaint response apologises for the delay in the process, which we would consider to be a satisfactory way to address that matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault in the determination of the application has affected the planning outcome, and we will not pursue the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman