The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s initial planning application because his neighbour has decided not to implement the approval. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s more recent decision to grant planning permission as it is unlikely we would find fault and the matter does not cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to consult residents on an application for development near his home and wrongly approved the application despite it not meeting the eligibility criteria. He also complains about the Council’s handling and grant of planning permission for a more recent application.
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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s concern about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s initial application amounts to a disagreement on the merits of its decision. The Council received an objection on the same grounds Mr X raises in his complaint and the planning officer’s report shows it took account of the point but decided, on balance, that the applicant had provided sufficient information to support their assertion. We will not investigate this issue further as the Council’s decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice. This is because he is not an adjoining neighbour and the Council confirms the applicant has decided not to implement the approval.
Mr X’s neighbour has now applied for a new grant of planning permission and while Mr X disagrees with its decision to approve the application I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. Local residents were consulted on the application and several objected to it. The planning officer’s report shows the Council took account of the objections received and considered the impact of the proposal on neighbours in terms of overbearing, loss of privacy and loss of light. It is not fault to notify only adjoining neighbours directly or to rely on a site notice and there is no requirement for the Council to discuss proposals with neighbours before reaching a decision. While Mr X is concerned the Council has failed to enforce compliance with a condition for the previous approval this condition does not automatically transfer to the new planning permission and cannot be enforced against its implementation.
Mr X says the Council failed to take into account an appeal decision on a similar application but such decisions do not set a precedent for all similar development within the Council’s area. Applications must be considered on a case by case basis and the evidence shows the Council took into account the relevant material planning considerations in reaching its decision to grant planning permission. The decision also does not cause Mr X significant personal injustice as he is not an adjoining neighbour and does not directly face onto the development site.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter does not cause Mr X significant injustice and it is unlikely we would find fault affecting the Council’s recent decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman