The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application over a period of several months. The Council has discretion to accept amended plans, and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation by us.
The complaint
Mr X said the Council failed to properly appreciate the extent of planning harm part of the plans for the property next door to his own would cause. He said he had had to engage an architect at cost, and to respond to repeated amended plans before the Council accepted the scale of one part of the developer’s plans was too great.
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 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 continue 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 the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X said he did not oppose the redevelopment of the property next to his own, and had accepted the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. His complaint was that the Council should have realised much sooner that the scale of one part of the plans was disproportionate and would result in unacceptable overlooking of part of his home.
The Council has discretion to accept amended plans, and there is no limit to how many amendments can be considered. Therefore, investigation by us would be unlikely to find the Council should have refused to accept amended plans, or that it should have reached its eventual position when granting permission sooner. Investigation by us would also be unlikely to find fault by the Council meant Mr X had to incur cost in order to object to the proposed development.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman