The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission to his neighbour. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission to his neighbour for a raised decking area. Mr X is also unhappy about how the Council dealt with the planning application and said it was slow in considering the case.
Mr X said he has lost privacy in his garden and the Council’s actions has caused him distress. He wants the structure removing and for the Council to accept it made a mistake.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s neighbour built a raised deck area in their garden without planning permission. The Council started planning enforcement action, however paused this whilst the neighbour applied for retrospective planning permission. The Council rejected the first application; however, approved the neighbour’s second application after they made amendments.
The case officer’s report demonstrates the Council considered Mr X’s objections to the second application. This included his concerns about screening and loss of privacy; inaccurate applicant plans and lack of precedent for the proposed screening on the street. The Council completed a site visit. It decided the proposed deck and screening would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
Although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application to justify our involvement. It has considered it in line with relevant policies, completed a site visit and considered Mr X’s objections.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the time it took the Council to decide on the planning application. That is because any delay has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman