The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s hedge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X by a land ownership issue to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X lives next to a property which sought planning permission for works to the garden. The development included a new hedge next to the roadway and Mr X’s drive. He complains the Council: failed to properly consider his objection to the hedge on highway visibility and safety grounds; failed to conduct an on-site meeting with him about the matter; allocated the case to an inexperienced officer; failed to identify the correct owner of the hedge land and did not consult them.
Mr X says the taller permitted hedge will affect his visibility when driving on to the highway from his property, making it unsafe. He says he has spent much time and been caused inconvenience from having to investigate and research matters. Mr X says the situation has caused strain with his neighbour, leading to stress and anxiety.
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 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 continue 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 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
Mr X says the Council mishandled his planning objections and did not take proper account of the development’s taller hedge on his driveway visibility. The Council’s officers considered Mr X’s objections within the planning process. They reflected his material planning concerns in the report, summarising and responding to them when assessing the impact of the development on his property. This included the taller hedge’s effect on Mr X’s visibility when driving on to the roadway. Officers noted Mr X’s drive produced a limited degree of traffic, and he would be moving at slow speeds to move off it. They considered the application and Mr X’s concerns, visited the site and determined the hedge would not create conditions causing significant harm to highway safety. That was a conclusion they were entitled to reach. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s objections here to warrant an investigation. We realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Mr X says the Council should have done an on-site meeting with him about the application. The Council says its planning officer visited to see the location. It is for officers to decide how to gather the information they consider they need to make their decision. The planning process is not a forum for discussion or negotiation about proposed developments between objectors, officers and applicants. Objectors or supporters of a scheme can make their comments and these then form part of the planning authority’s consideration. It is not fault for a council to decide not to meet with someone as part of their planning process.
Mr X says the planning officer was inexperienced. The Council agrees the officer was new to the role. But the delegated decision was not made solely by the planning officer. While the planning officer did the report, the decision notice is issued under the name of a senior officer in the Council’s planning department. There is insufficient evidence that this issue affected the Council’s planning process or its outcome to warrant an investigation.
Mr X says the hedge land is owned by the highways authority, not Ashford Borough Council. He considers the Council should have consulted with the owner of the land being used by the new hedge. The Council considers it owns the land. Even if the Council does not own the land and has not consulted the owner, we will not investigate this issue. Land ownership is not a material planning matter so did not fall to the Council to consider when determining the application. Any dispute about the new hedge on the land is a private civil matter between the land’s owner and the planning applicant. The planting of the new hedge on someone else’s land or any lack of planning consultation with its owner on the matter are not personal injustices to Mr X which would justify us investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and there is insufficient significant injustice caused to Mr X by the land ownership issue to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman