Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council decided planning permission for a neighbour’s garden structure, and how it dealt with his complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the key outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s property borders a house whose owner built a garden structure, near the shared boundary. He complains the Council failed to:
1. show due consideration to his objections to the structure;
2. adequately explain their planning decision;
3. provide proper explanations for its decision or discuss the complaint during its complaint process, or deal with the complaint respectfully.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:
• review its planning decision and retrospectively amend the consent and/or make amendments to the structure such as reducing its height, moving it further from the boundary and placing restrictions on its appearance;
• apologise for its failings;
• adopt policy to clearly justify and explain future planning decisions, show how evidence has been considered, acknowledge lived experience, and show respect and compassion;
• pay for a suitable screen or plant wall to reduce the impact of the structure.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. It was the role of the Council’s officers to assess the application using their professional judgement and set out their decision in the planning report. When making their decision they compared the proposed development with the structure previously in the same area of the host property’s garden. Officers also took account of relevant information to assess planning harm, including the structure’s size, scale and relationship to other properties, including Mr X’s property. They received and considered Mr X’s objections as part of that assessment and summarised those concerns in the report. Officers determined the details of the development as proposed would not cause such harm to Mr X’s property to warrant them refusing permission.
8. Officers followed the proper planning process to make their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the officers’ decision that the development would not cause such planning harm to justify refusing the permission. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Mr X also complains about the way the Council handled his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. While recognising it may not be possible, the key planning outcome Mr X wants is for the Council to make changes to the permission it has granted, to alter the height, location and appearance of the structure. Councils cannot impose new conditions or amendments on a granted permission. To change the terms of a permission would require it to be revoked and go through a new planning process. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions they have issued. That we cannot achieve the key complaint outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate. We might only achieve the other complaint outcomes of an apology, service changes and any monetary remedy when claimed impacts stem from council fault, and there has been no such finding of fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcomes he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman