Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application for extensions at a property next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s decision to approve a neighbour’s planning application was influenced by incorrect, false and unnecessary information, and it did not visit his property to assess the impact of the proposal on his amenity.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the Council made its decision. If there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their Stage 1 and 2 complaint correspondence.
• The Council’s ‘Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2022’
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy that his neighbour’s planning application was approved.
6. 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. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. Here, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area (e.g. from a previous application) and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview. There was also no requirement for the Council to visit Mr X’s home.
• the delegated officer report summarises the objections received against the proposal, and it is common practice to list the number of representations received ‘for’ and ‘against’ an application. I have seen nothing to suggest the volume/strength of local support has affected the Council’s assessment of the material planning considerations.
• although the site description in the report incorrectly refers to a double garage, I am not persuaded this has affected the assessment of the material planning considerations.
• although the report says the extensions will be used by disabled family members, I am not persuaded this has influenced the assessment of the material planning considerations.
• the report states the proposal complies with the numerical guidelines in the Council’s SPD.
• the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide if the proposal was acceptable in planning terms, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusion it reached.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman