Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about a planning application for a development near her home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The application outcome has not been affected by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not notify her about a planning application for roof alterations to a property near her home, and she does not think it should have been granted planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, the alleged fault has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision on a planning application. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether any fault in the way the decision was reached is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s complaint responses. I have also looked at the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and information about the planning application on its website.
5. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The SCI says individual consultation letters are sent to all properties that adjoin an application site and to other properties in the area that are judged to be affected. Although Mrs X’s home does not adjoin the application site, she thinks she should have been notified because her side windows, particularly a first‑floor bathroom window, face the site. In granting permission, Mrs X thinks the Council has failed to properly consider the impact of the development on her amenity and the character of the area.
7. Whilst I note Mrs X’s concerns, I am satisfied the application outcome has not been affected by the alleged fault. The case officer’s report considers the impact of the proposal on the character of the area in some detail. Similarly, the impact on the amenity of the two immediately adjoining properties is fully assessed. Given the greater separation distance between Mrs X’s home and the application site, it is implicit that the impact on her would also be deemed acceptable. The Council’s complaint responses detail further why any harm to Mrs X’s amenity would not be considered so significant as to have warranted refusal of the application. I see no reasons to question the professional judgement of the Council’s officers in their assessment of the impact of the development.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not affected the application outcome and so has not caused her significant personal injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman