The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning issues related to building works next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the enforcement case and planning applications relating to building works at a neighbouring property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can investigate 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. So, we do not start 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr X.
information about the planning applications on the Council’s website.
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council approved the works to his neighbour’s property, and that he has experienced difficulties in communicating with the Council.
But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against planning decisions. Rather, our primary role is to review the way the Council made its decisions, and to consider if any fault in that process is likely to have influenced the outcome.
I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the applications to justify pursuing the complaint further. In reaching this view I am mindful that: The photographs on the online planning case file suggest the case officer carried out a site visit.
Mr X’s comments, and those submitted on his behalf by a councillor, are summarised in the delegated report.
The report goes on to consider the relevant material planning considerations, including the design of the extension and the impact on Mr X’s amenity. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on these matters, even if Mr X agrees with them.
There was no statutory requirement to notify Mr X of the certificate of lawfulness application. This is because views expressed by third parties on the planning merits of the case are irrelevant when determining this type of application. The application merely seeks confirmation that the proposed works are in accordance with ‘permitted development’ criteria, which, in basic terms, is a national grant of deemed planning permission.
Concerns about Party Wall issues or damage to property are private, civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.
We cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering letters to Mr X.
And whilst Mr X may have experienced some delay/difficulties in communications with the Council, any injustice caused by this is not significant enough to justify us investigating it separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled and determined the planning applications.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman