Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly publicise a planning application or respond to concerns. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly publicise a planning application and has not properly addressed his concerns that the build is contrary to approved plans. Mr X says the extension impacts the privacy of his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law says councils must publicise minor developments by placing either a site notice or contacting adjoining owners or occupiers.
7. The Council contacted neighbouring properties but did not contact Mr X as his property is not adjoining the development site. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to investigate.
8. Mr X says the Council approved the original planning application based on incorrect plans. The Council considered whether this information affected its decision to approve the application and provided a detailed explanation to Mr X as to why it does not and that even with the correct plans there is no significant impact on Mr X’s property. The Council has provided evidence-based reasons in line with the law. I cannot say that any fault in its decision making on the original application caused injustice and will not investigate.
9. Mr X also complained the build was progressing contrary to the plans approved. A Council officer visited the site and found the works in line with the agreed plans, but noted work was still ongoing. The Council confirmed a further visit could be done once construction was complete to check the plans were followed correctly. The Council completed a site visit in line with its policy and gave reasons for its decision not to take enforcement action at that time. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond appropriately to his complaint. I will not investigate this complaint as it is not proportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
11. Mr X says the Council should publish information about its criteria for deciding on planning permission. The Council has guidance about the planning process available online via its website, with details about how to access this information in different formats. I am satisfied there is not enough evidence of fault to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to Mr X or of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman