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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. She says the Council did not properly consider the impact on her property or the surrounding area. Mrs X says the new development will cause a loss of privacy and loss of light to her garden.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. 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.

What happened

5. The Council received a planning application for a residential development near Mrs X’s home. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination and permission was granted subject to conditions.
6. Mrs X has complained about how the Council dealt with the application. She says the case officer’s report incorrectly referred to her home as two flats and the impact on her amenity was not properly considered. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the impact the development will have on the area and says she was not given the opportunity to comment on the planning conditions.

Assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mrs X has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
8. 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.
9. In this case, I am satisfied the case officer properly considered the application, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The issues were also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission. The case officer’s report accepted there would be some harm to the character of the area but decided this would be minimal and the development would not be visually intrusive. The report also said there would be a sufficient separation distance between Mrs X’s home and the new dwellings to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy.
10. Mrs X has raised concerns about the fence which will be erected and the description of her home in the case officer’s report. But in response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council has said the fence would not result in an unacceptable loss of light. The fence can also be erected without the need to apply for planning permission using permitted development rights. Mrs X spoke at the planning committee meeting and members were aware of the correct property description for her home before granting planning permission. Therefore, I cannot say she has suffered any significant injustice because of any error in the case officer’s report regarding the description of her home.
11. Mrs X is concerned about disruption while the development is being built and says her home will lose value. But these issues are not material planning matters.
12. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But it was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable and 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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman