The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainants have not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X have complained about how the Council dealt with their neighbour’s planning application. They say the Council failed to publicise the application as it should have and their concerns about the development were not properly taken into account. Mr and Mrs X say the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information and the extension will have a significant impact on their privacy.
Mr and Mrs X have also complained about how the Council dealt with their concerns about the unauthorised use of a garage.
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 and Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr and Mrs X’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not adversely impact the living conditions of the neighbouring residents. The planning permission was also subject to a condition requiring the applicant to erect a privacy screen which the officer considered would prevent adverse overlooking.
Mr and Mrs X say the plans did not accurately show the site boundary. But it is not for the Council to get involved with boundary issues. The case officer also visited the site so was aware of the relationship between the properties before granting planning permission.
I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mr and Mrs X have also complained about how the Council publicised the application and say the neighbour notification letters were sent during the summer holidays. There was also a delay before their objections could be viewed on the Council’s website. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr and Mrs X suffered any significant injustice as a result. They were still aware of the application and able to comment on the proposal. Their objections were considered by the case officer before planning permission was granted.
Mr and Mrs X have complained their neighbour changed the use of their garage without planning permission. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mr and Mrs X’s concerns before deciding it was not necessary to take further action. An officer visited the site but decided the use of the garage was ancillary to the main dwelling. Therefore, the officer decided there had not been a breach of planning control and there were no grounds on which to take enforcement action. I understand Mr and Mrs X may disagree but this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
Mr and Mrs X have also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and they have not suffered significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman