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 Mrs X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Mrs X says the development is overbearing and too close to her property. She says it causes loss of light and blocks her views. Mrs X says the development has devalued her home and the Council should compensate her.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered 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 a decision was made.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before deciding the development would not cause demonstrable amenity issues in terms of overshadowing, overbearing or overlooking. Mrs X’s concerns about her home losing value and loss of views were not material planning considerations.
8. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment 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 it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman