The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ignoring his objections to his neighbour Mr Y’s planning application, and granting permission despite the proposal not complying with Council planning guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process to warrant us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X lives next to a property owned by Mr X which received planning permission for development. Mr X complains the Council: overlooked his objections about privacy when considering the application; failed to apply the relevant guidelines when determining privacy issues relating to the development.
Mr X says the development will result in loss of privacy due to his property. He says the situation is causing him and his partner constant anxiety and distress. Mr X says they are enduring daily harassment, threats and intimidation from neighbours and he has had to involve the police. Mr X wants the Council to conduct an independent review of the planning decision. Alternatively, he wants the Council to provide expert advice and financial compensation to mitigate the privacy losses if the development is built.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 and the Council. I also considered relevant online planning documents and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X objected to his neighbour Mr Y’s planning application. He was concerned about the impact on his privacy from proposals for additional windows. Mr X says the Council overlooked his objections when assessing and deciding to grant permission for the application and failed to apply its relevant planning guidance.
We cannot go behind a council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process followed which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. So we consider the process the Council followed to reach its decision on the application.
Council officers engaged with Mr X about his objections during the planning process. The planning report summarises Mr X’s objections, then goes on to consider the planning impact of the proposed development on his property and respond to those objections. The planning officer’s report demonstrates the Council did not overlook or ignore Mr X’s objections as claimed. I recognise the Council did not agree with Mr X that the impact on his property from the proposed development was unacceptable and should be refused permission. But reaching different decisions on the issues is not evidence of officers ignoring those issues.
Officers assessed the information gathered about the proposed development and the nearby properties in reaching their decision. They took the view that the relationships between the additions to the host property proposed by the application caused some further overlooking to Mr X’s property. But they determined the additional planning harm caused by the development, including impact on privacy to Mr X’s property, was not sufficient to justify and sustain a refusal of the permission.
I understand Mr X wanted officers to require the development proposals to comply with the guidance. But the guidance cannot cover all planning circumstances. It is also not binding on officers. They must consider each application on its own merits and make their decision based on whether the planning harm which would be caused by a development gives them sustainable planning grounds to refuse permission. That is what officers did here.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process and its decision to warrant investigation. I realise Mr X does not agree with the Council’s planning decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
I note Mr X says neighbours have been harassing, threatening and intimidating him and his family. I understand Mr X has notified the police about these matters. Even if we were to find Council fault here, we could hold the Council responsible for such unacceptable actions by individuals not employed or controlled by it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning decision-making process to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman