The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council was wrong to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s outbuilding. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms X.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council was wrong to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s outbuilding and that it did not check incorrect measurements in the application. She says it did not address each concern she raised or support her confidentiality request.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to the complaint, and the online planning documentation.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
Ms X objected to her neighbour’s planning application to build an outbuilding in their garden. The Council considered her objections but decided as the building would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties or to the character and appearance of the area, it would grant permission.
Ms X complained to the Council about its decision and its handling of the application which it addressed under its complaints procedure. While it acknowledged the officer report did not refer to the incorrect measurements made within the application, it said the report provided reasoning as to why the scheme was considered acceptable and it satisfied itself that a different conclusion would not have been reached.
The Council advised Ms X that if unsociable working hours on the build were disturbing her, she could report this to the Environmental Health Department and that comments received on planning applications are published on its website. It told her the application was for ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling and not as a new unit of accommodation but that it could use its enforcement powers if it received information of the latter.
While I understand Ms X is disappointed with the Council’s decision on the application, it is not our role to act as an appeal body. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While I note the Council’s acknowledgement about reference to incorrect measurements being in the neighbour comment section rather than the body of the report, we could not conclude but for that omission the outcome would have been different.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman