Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension to a flat below the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the planning application outcome, the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy for its delays in responding to the complaint correspondence, and we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the Council’s actions as freeholder of the building.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, is the leaseholder of a flat in a building and the Council is the freeholder. She complains the Council should not have granted planning permission for an extension to the flat below her, as she was not aware of the application, the works affect the visual amenity from her window, and they prevent her from carrying out her own refurbishment. Miss X also says the Council delayed in responding to her subsequent complaint correspondence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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 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
• the Council has already proposed a satisfactory remedy for the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)& (7))

4. 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. If there is evidence of fault, we will consider whether this is likely to have affected the decision/outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. And we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council that is a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X, and our Assessment Code.
7. I also considered information about the planning application on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

8. While I recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision on her neighbour’s planning application, we do not provide a right of appeal against it. Rather, our main role here is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and to consider if any fault is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant permission.
9. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council determined the planning application that is likely to have affected the outcome, so I do not consider Miss X has suffered an injustice as a result of any errors by the Council. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint. In reaching my view, I am particularly mindful that:
• There is no requirement for Councils to send notification letters via recorded delivery, and it cannot be held responsible if Royal Mail failed to deliver the letter.
• Issues such as loss of a view or maintenance problems could not be taken into account by the Council when determining a planning application, as they are not material planning considerations. Similarly, the Council could not have considered the impact of the development on any speculative proposals by Miss X for works she had considered undertaking to her flat in the future.
• Although the case officer’s report does not refer to the impact of the development on Miss X’s residential amenity, I am satisfied the application is still likely to have been approved if this had been properly taken into account.
10. The Council has accepted there were failures/delays in responding to Miss X’s subsequent complaint and it has apologised for this. It has offered to pay Miss X £100 to compensate for the failure. I am satisfied with the Council’s response to this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.
11. Finally, and with reference to paragraph 5 above, we have no authority to investigate any parts of the complaint about the Council’s actions in its role as the freeholder of the building.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she has not been caused an injustice as a result of any faults in the way the planning application was processed, an appropriate remedy has been offered for the complaint handling errors, and we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the Council’s actions as freeholder of the building.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman