The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning applications for the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Ms X, complains the Council mishandled two planning applications for her neighbours flat.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to replace their ground floor bedroom window with French doors and to fence off the front garden area with timber slat screens on three sides. The Council refused the application because of the harm to the street scene caused by the fencing.
The neighbour appealed to the Planning Inspector. The Inspector dismissed the appeal because introducing fencing caused a degree of harm to the street scene.
The Council prepared to take enforcement action against the unauthorised development.
The neighbour made a retrospective application to keep the French doors only. The Council notified the neighbours and Ms X objected.
The Planning Officers’ report is clear the application is retrospective. It also refers to Ms X’s objections and the planning history for the site.
The Planning Officer considered the impact of the French doors on the neighbours including Ms X’s property. They recommended approval.
The ward councillor referred the application to the planning committee despite it being a minor development.
Following consideration and debate, the Planning Committee decided to approve the application.
Ms X says the Council failed to keep her informed during the planning process. However, it confirms neighbours were notified and it is clear she objected. Therefore, I consider the Council has met its statutory obligations. There is no obligation to provide regular updates to those reporting breaches of planning control.
I recognise Ms X disagrees with the way the Council dealt with her neighbours’ planning applications. However, the first application was refused, therefore I do not consider she suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.
It is clear from the case officer report that the Council was clear on what was proposed in the second application. And that it considered the relevant material planning considerations before the Committee decided to approve the application.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with her neighbours’ planning applications to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman