Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not properly consider their neighbour’s planning application. They also complain about its handling of their subsequent complaints.
2. They say this has caused them injustice because their concerns have not been properly considered and has also led to ongoing stress and uncertainty.
3. They would like the Council to acknowledge their concerns and investigate. They would like reassurance the decision-making process was based on complete and accurate information. If fault is found, they would like the Council to apologise and make service improvements to prevent similar issues in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. 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.
11. Mr and Mrs X say the Council did not properly consider the impact of the development on their access to light. The case officer’s report addresses their light concerns and concludes the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of light, outlook or create an overbearing impact. The Officer restated this position at committee when questioned and members discussed the acceptability of the proposal before deciding the application should be approved.
12. Mr and Mrs X say reference to a fallback position was misleading. The Council was entitled to describe the development in the context of what would be allowed under permitted development rights, and this would be a material planning consideration. Plans clearly showed the scale and layout of the proposed development and the Council considered the impact of the extension applied for.
13. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.
14. Mr and Mrs X say comments made during the committee meeting may have misled the committee. Accurate information was provided in the Officer’s report and committee members had access to the application details. The final decision was in line with the Officer’s recommendation. If inaccurate comments were made during the meeting, it is unlikely they affected the committee’s decision. Members also visited the development site, and Mr X also spoke during the committee meeting. Therefore, members were aware of the issues and development proposed before voting to grant planning permission.
15. Mr and Mrs X have concerns about how the development is being constructed. They have not raised this issue in their formal complaints to the Council. The restrictions in paragraph six therefore prevent us from investigating. If they wish, Mr and Mrs X may make a new separate complaint to the Council’s planning enforcement team if they believe planning conditions have been breached and return to the Ombudsman if they are unhappy with its response.
16. Mr and Mrs X say the Council did not properly consider their complaints. We will not investigate complaint handling of this case as we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman