Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Dr Y complain the Council failed to consider their objections to a neighbour’s planning application. They say they contacted their ward councillor who told them they would raise the issue with the planning committee but failed to do so. They say the proposed development would overbear their property and impact the enjoyment of their home. They say this has caused them unnecessary stress and frustration. They want the Council to be held accountable for not treating them fairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X and Dr Y complained the Council failed to address their objections to a neighbour’s planning application.
7. The Council explained to Ms X and Dr Y it had reviewed the process and planning officers report and found no procedural errors. I am satisfied the Council considered the concerns Ms X and Dr Y raised in the planning report and the Council followed the correct processes in making its decision. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.
8. 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. Ms X and Dr Y complained their Councillor failed to raise their concerns at the Council’s planning committee meeting as agreed.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Although, the Councillor did not raise Ms X and Dr Y’s concerns to the planning committee, the concerns were addressed in the planning officers report. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. If Ms X and Dr Y were not happy with the Councillor’s conduct. It would have been reasonable for them to raise a complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X and Dr Y’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman