Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the new development has a significant impact on her property and the potential impact was not clear enough from the application details. Ms X says her home has lost value and she has been caused considerable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions, instead we consider if there was any fault with how a decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on the area and Ms X’s home before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The report said the development would not impinge on neighbouring amenities such as daylight, sunlight and outlook. The case officer also decided the development would not add to the overlooking that already existed between the properties.
9. Ms X says the information submitted with the application did not clearly show the potential impact on her home. However, the Council has explained it was satisfied the description of the development reflected what was being applied for. The approved plans also show the relationship between Ms X’s home and the proposed development.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application before granting planning permission, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman