Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about the accuracy of plans submitted for his neighbour’s development. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly respond to his concerns about significant discrepancies between the plans submitted with his neighbour’s planning application and the actual physical relationship between his property and his neighbour’s. He says the plans are misleading and his request for a site visit to demonstrate the discrepancy was refused by the case officer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that it had granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development based on inaccurate plans and that has meant the development has greater impact on his property and amenity.
7. The Council responded to explain that the case officer had previously visited Mr X in relation to an earlier application submitted by his neighbour and did not need to undertake another visit. It also said that it had not received any specific or detailed information to show there was a significant degree of difference between the information shown on the plans and the situation on site.
8. The Council responded to the concerns Mr X raised and pointed out the conditions attached to the permission, introduced to help control the impact of the development on Mr’s property to an acceptable level.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the decision taken on the application, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman