The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of three planning applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mr X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of three planning applications made by his neighbour. He says it has granted planning permission for a new dwelling which overlooks his property (Application 1) and has approved changes to the original plans which increase the impact on his property (Application 2). He also complains it has granted permission for change of use of part of his neighbour’s property for development which is out of keeping with the area (Application 3). Mr X would like the Council to revoke the planning permissions and require changes to the developments which reduce the impact on his property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council granted planning permission for Application 1 more than 12 months before Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman. Any complaint about its handling of the application is therefore late. I have however reviewed the basis for the Council’s decision and find no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council considered the development in detail and took account of the impact it would have on highway safety, the local area and neighbour amenity, amongst other things. In these circumstances we cannot question the Council’s judgement that the development was acceptable or say its decision to grant planning permission was flawed.
Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Application 2 was raised with the Council before it determined the application. It was therefore within time but premature. But the Council has now granted permission for the proposal and there is no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision. Mr X disputed the basis of the application but the decision notice and the planning officer’s report provide the reasons for its approval. The changes also do not cause Mr X significant injustice and would not warrant investigation.
I have also considered Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Application 3 but have decided not to investigate this for two reasons. Firstly, the Council has considered relevant objections to the proposal and explained the reasons for its decision and I have seen no evidence of fault affecting the outcome. Secondly, the development approved does not cause Mr X significant injustice. This is because the development is minor and lies on land some distance from his property.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its decisions caused Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman