The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s outbuilding. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council wrongly granted retrospective planning permission for an outbuilding in her neighbour’s garden. Mrs B says the Council did not consider her concerns and did not view the outbuilding from her property. Mrs B says the outbuilding overlooks her home and reduces the value of her property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether an organisation’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 Mrs B and have viewed planning records available online.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs B disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But, we can only consider whether the Council’s decision to grant planning permission was affected by fault. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot say the Council’s decision was right or wrong.
The information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.
The Council has explained it did not visit the application property or Mrs B’s property because of COVID-19 measures in force at the time. But, the Council says, the case officer took photographs of the outbuilding from outside the application site. The case officer also had photographs Mrs B sent to the Council when the outbuilding was being constructed. In addition, the plans put in with the application clearly showed the dimensions and design of the outbuilding. I find the Council had enough information to make a sound assessment of the application.
The Council set out its consideration of the application in a case report. The Council summarised Mrs B’s objections in the report. The Council explained why it considered the appearance of the outbuilding and the impact on the amenity of Mrs B’s home were acceptable. The Council took relevant factors into account including what could be built under permitted development rules, which means a grant of planning permission from the Council is not needed.
So, an investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman