The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour's planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Ms X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. She says it made its decision without taking her objections into account and relied on incorrect information.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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) 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 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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.
My assessment
Unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant permission for her neighbour’s planning application, Ms X complained to the Council. She raised a variety of issues which it addressed under its own complaints procedure. It referred her to the officer report for the application which considered the planning objections Ms X had raised.
Ms X does not agree with the Council’s decision but it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions the Council has made if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
Ms X says there was unnecessary delay and problems with notifying her about the application and receiving the correct Ownership Certificate. However, while such matters may well have worried Ms X, her objections against the application were received and considered before the decision was taken on the application and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
If there are land ownership and access issues involved, these are civil matters between Ms X and her neighbour and they do not involve the Council.
In responding to my draft decision Ms X has referred again to boundary issues and access to the garden. However, it has been explained to her that these are civil law matters and not planning matters. I understand that taking civil action against her neighbour would be expensive, but this does not change the legal situation. Ms X also says the application process discriminated against her but I have seen no evidence to support this claim. That planning permission was granted is not evidence the Council ignored Ms X’s objections. They were considered but unfortunately for her the Council decided to grant permission. This is a decision it was entitled to make.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Ms X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman