The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to discharge a planning condition. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s error.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application to discharge a planning condition for a development near his home. Mr X says the new development will have a significant impact on his property and the planning conditions imposed to protect his privacy have not been complied with.
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, 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 Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mr X had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Council granted planning permission for a development behind Mr X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions, one of which said the applicant must submit details of the walls and fences to be erected, including a two metre high boundary fence, to the Council for approval before commencing with the development. The purpose of the condition was to protect the amenity of the area.
The developer submitted details to the Council to discharge the planning condition. However, this did not include any information about the fence that would be erected along the boundary with the properties on the road where Mr X lives. The Council discharged the planning condition, and the developer erected a five metre chain link fence along the boundary. Mr X says the fence that has been put up by the developer is not sufficient to protect his privacy and a new fence needs to be erected.
The Council says the planning condition did not specify the type of boundary fence that should be erected. But it accepts it discharged the planning condition without all the necessary information being provided.
However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s error. The Council has explained why it does not consider Mr X’s amenity has been affected. It says the new building will be about 40 metres from Mr X’s home and the new development will have less impact on his amenity than the previous use of the site. There is also existing vegetation along the boundary providing screening and the addition of a two metre fence would not impact views from the new building. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the failure to provide the two metre fence did not have an adverse impact on Mr X’s amenity.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice because of the Council’s fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman