Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. She says the Council did not follow the proper processes and its decision to grant planning permission was inconsistent and based on inaccurate plans.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I have considered her comments in response.

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 a decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council considered the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on Ms X’s home, before granting planning permission. The report acknowledged the new windows would have a greater impact on residential amenity, but the case officer decided the impact would not be unacceptable. Ms X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard.
9. Ms X says the Council based its planning decision on inaccurate information. The Council accepted the plans did not accurately show the existing windows at the application site and should have been amended. But I cannot say Ms X has been caused significant injustice in this regard as it is unlikely this affected the decision to grant planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on residential amenity. The officer also visited the site and therefore was aware of the relationship between the properties before deciding the proposal was acceptable. Ms X says the case officer did not visit her home and therefore could not properly assess the impact of the development. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when determining planning applications and the acceptability of the proposal can often be assessed from the development site.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X has not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman