The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of applications for works at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the applications.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of applications for works at a neighbouring property. In particular, Mrs X says: She was not notified about the neighbour’s applications.
The approved plans do not fully represent all the works carried out at the property.
The works are not in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and have a negative impact on her amenity.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mrs X.
information about the neighbour’s applications, on the Council’s planning website.
the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy about the impact of the works at the neighbouring site. But the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against planning decisions. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault, in the way the Council has considered the applications for the neighbouring site, to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that: The Council says it sent notification letters to adjoining properties for the two planning applications, which is in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s SCI. We cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering the notification letters.
There was no requirement to publicise the lawful development certificate application.
The Council had to determine the lawful development certificate application and the planning application, on the basis of what was submitted by the applicant for each of those applications. It appears the applicant has then decided to implement the separate permissions simultaneously.
Council officers were entitled to use their professional judgement to decide whether the impact of the completed development is acceptable in planning terms, even if Mrs X disagrees with the decision reached.
Disruption and overlooking during construction works, and domestic cooking smells from the completed development, would not normally constitute material planning considerations for householder applications.
Any claims of property damage by the neighbour’s builders would be a private, civil matter.
The Council’s planning team has checked the works carried out, and has invited the neighbour to submit a planning application for an element of the roof alterations, which I understand no longer benefits from permitted development rights due to the materials used.
In this instance, the Council was not responsible for checking compliance with the building regulations, as I understand the neighbour is using a private ‘registered building control approver’.
If the neighbour uses the flat roof of the extension as a balcony, then Mrs X can report this to the Council’s planning enforcement team.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled the applications for works to the neighbouring property.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman