Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning applications. Ms X says the Council did not consult her on all the applications and failed to properly assess the impact of the developments. Ms X says the developments will have a significant impact on her property.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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)

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 the decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the planning applications before granting permission for the developments. The case officer’s reports referred to the impact on the area and Ms X’s property. However, the officer decided the developments would not cause a significant loss of light, outlook or overlooking.
9. Ms X says the case officer did not include all the comments she made in their report for the application she did object to. However, the case officer’s report is just a summary of the issues, and I am satisfied the officer considered the impact on Ms X’s property, even if all the matters she raised were not listed.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decisions to approve the applications. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the applications were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question these decisions unless they were tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Ms X says she was not notified about all the applications and therefore did not have the opportunity to comment on all the proposals before they were approved. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
12. The Council says it did write to Ms X to tell her about the planning applications. I understand Ms X may dispute this. But even if the Council failed to publicise the applications as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council properly considered the acceptability of the development and therefore it is likely the decisions to grant planning permission would be the same had Ms X known about all the applications for the site and objected to the proposals. The Council was also not required to consult Ms X about the application for a lawful development certificate and I am satisfied it considered this application in line with the relevant criteria before deciding the proposal was permitted development.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman