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

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X says the development has a significant impact on her property and the Council did not visit her home to properly assess the application.

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. (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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the area and Ms X’s property. However, the officer decided the development would not be overbearing or cause overshadowing.
8. Ms X says the Council did not visit her home to assess the development. She has also raised concerns the development has not been built in line with the approved plans. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties to assess an application and the acceptability of a proposal can often be determined from the development site. The Council’s enforcement officer has also visited the site and was satisfied the development had been built in line with the approved plans.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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