The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a new dwelling opposite the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint appears to be late, there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to the complainant, and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, thought the original planning application for a new dwelling had been granted, but says the Council then approved an amendment which brought the building closer to his home. Mr X says the Council only informed the two closest neighbours of the amendment via email, and believes other interested residents would have objected strongly to the amended scheme if they had been reconsulted.
Mr X wants the dwelling moved back to the originally proposed position.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. But 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) And we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the complaint responses.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
My assessment
It seems the 12-month time restriction, detailed in paragraph 4 above, may apply to Mr X’s complaint. This is because the amended plans were available on the Council’s website in late-2019, during the determination of the application, and planning permission was granted in early-2020. Yet Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman until September 2022, despite information about the approved scheme being available for over two years. I am unaware of any reasons why Mr X was prevented from complaining to us sooner, so the Ombudsman would not exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now.
And even if this time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman would still not investigate the complaint. Whilst I recognise Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission with the dwelling closer to his home, we do not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our role is to review the process by which a planning decision has been made, and to consider if any fault in that process is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
I find there is not enough evidence to conclude fault has affected the Council’s decision. As such, I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant injustice as a result of any procedural errors by the Council. In reaching this view I am mindful that: During the determination of the application, the Council informed the occupants of Mr X’s property of the amended position of the dwelling, and they submitted further objections.
These objections, as well as a summary of the original objections from other residents, were referred to in the case officer’s report.
The volume of local opposition for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing planning permission. Rather, the Council should consider any key, material planning considerations raised by objectors when it determines an application.
It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material planning consideration when determining an application.
The case officers report considers the impact of the proposal on the amenity of occupants of Mr X’s property. It specifically notes the separation distance between the two buildings far exceeds the recommended distance in the Council’s planning policy. The report also considers the principle of a new dwelling on this application site, and its design in the context of the surrounding area.
And finally, the Ombudsman has no power to direct the Council to revoke the planning permission or have the dwelling repositioned, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it appears to be late, there is not enough evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman