Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council officer’s consideration of an application for a new residential development next to her house, or the planning committee’s decision to grant it permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives next door to a site granted planning permission for a new bungalow. She complains the Council granted the permission without taking account of the overlooking and loss of privacy impacts of the new development on her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Miss X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered relevant online planning documents and maps.
7. I gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s planning officers gathered information about the development, its proposed location and relationship with Miss X’s property, to produce their report to the planning committee. They visited the site three times. The officers noted the impact of the development on Miss X’s property when reaching their view and recommending that the committee should grant the permission. The officers’ committee report considered the window in the elevation closest to Miss X’s property which has caused her concerns. They noted the window would be ‘almost entirely below’ the boundary fence between the development site and Miss X’s property. Officers concluded the window would not have an unacceptable impact on Miss X’s property’s amenity caused by overlooking, overshadowing or loss of privacy which would warrant a refusal of the application.
9. The application was then considered by the planning committee Members, who were the decision-makers. The Members also visited the site on the morning of the planning meeting. Members were aware of the proposal, its location and surroundings, including its relationship with the existing buildings. If Members had unresolved concerns about the development, including the impact on existing properties, they were entitled to vote against the scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision‑making process followed by the committee when determining the application to justify us investigating.
10. We can only go behind a council’s decision if there has been fault in the process followed to reach that decision which, but for the fault, a different decision would have been made. I have not seen enough evidence of such fault here to warrant us investigating. I realise Miss X disagrees with the officer’s views in the planning report, and the committee Members’ decision to grant the permission. But it is not fault for a council to hold views or make decisions with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman