Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for development next to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council made its decision that affected the outcome of the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for development next to her home. Her concerns include the impact of the development on her home, the effect on local wildlife and possible damage to her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mrs B said in her complaint and further information she provided, including photographs of the site. The Council also provided background information and I have seen information about the planning application on its website. Mrs B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

6. The Council received a planning application for development on a site next to Mrs B’s home. It had to consider the application on its planning merits and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal. It could not reject the application simply because there were objections to it.
7. The Council notified neighbours, including Mrs B, about the application. Planning officers then set out the planning issues in a report. This addressed comments the Council received on the application, including those from Mrs B. It also contained an assessment of the likely impact of the development on neighbouring properties, including Mrs B’s home.
8. The planning officers concluded there were no valid grounds to refuse the application and so granted planning permission under their delegated powers. In line with the Council’s scheme of delegation, the application did not have to be considered by elected members of the Council.

Analysis

9. I consider the Council has provided a full response to Mrs B’s concerns and investigation would add nothing of significance to what we know.
10. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council considered the planning application that is likely to have affected its decision to grant planning permission. We cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
11. The Council has explained the developer’s legal responsibilities regarding the effects of the development on wildlife. For example, the developer may need to obtain a licence from Natural England if there is evidence of endangered species on the site. However, these are not matters for which the Council is responsible.
12. The Council has also explained to Mrs B that her concerns about potential damage to her property arising from the development would be private matters. Again, these are not matters for which the Council is responsible.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council affected its decision to grant planning permission for the development next to Mrs B’s home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman