The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault in the decision‑making process is unlikely to have affected the outcome.
The complaint
The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr X and Mr Y, say the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for extensions to a building at the rear of their properties. In particular, they say: A councillor at the Planning Committee meeting misquoted the separation distance and vegetation was wrongly reported as being evergreen, and these errors were not corrected by officers; The Planning Committee considered the application close to midnight, after it had heard several other applications, so could not have adequately examined the proposal; Photographs/evidence submitted by objectors was not presented to the Committee.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman 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. 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting available on the Council’s website.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X and Mr Y disagree with the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s planning application. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our main role here is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and to consider if any fault in that process is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant permission.
In my view, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the alleged faults in how the Council determined the application have affected the outcome. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that: The objections to the application are summarised in the report to the Planning Committee and the Addendum, with reference to overlooking, loss of privacy, overbearing impact, the topography, and the deciduous nature of screening vegetation.
Mr X also spoke against the application at the Committee meeting, so Members would have been further aware of neighbours’ concerns.
The officer’s presentation of the proposal to the Committee included site and development plans. The ‘residential amenity’ section of Committee report also refers to the difference in levels/topography between the application site and Mr X and Mr Y’s homes, and correctly states the separation distances (31‑ 35m) between them. So, Members would have been aware of the relationship/positioning of the two sets of buildings.
The separation distance exceeds the minimum distance set out in the Council’s planning policies.
There is an intervening road between the application site and Mr X and Mr Y’s properties, and the vegetation along the boundaries (albeit partly deciduous) provides some screening.
I therefore do not consider Mr X and Mr Y have suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged errors by the Council so the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint.
And although the delay in the complaints process would have been frustrating, the level of resultant injustice is not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this matter in isolation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X and Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that the alleged fault in the decision-making process has affected the planning outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman