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 by the Council. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the Council failed to acknowledge or respond to her objections and the impact on her home was not properly considered.

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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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.
5. Mrs X says the Council did not acknowledge or respond to her letter raising objections to the proposal. The Council says it did not receive Mrs X’s letter and it does not acknowledge comments it receives by post. While I cannot know if the Council received Mrs X’s objection letter, I cannot say she has suffered any significant injustice in this regard. The case officer was still aware of Mrs X’s concerns and assessed the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission.
6. The case officer’s report said the proposal would not lead to overlooking, overshadowing or dominance. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was flawed.
7. Mrs X says the impact on her property was not properly considered as the case officer failed to visit the site. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit a site to assess an application and the Council has explained how it was able to determine the proposal without a site visit. I understand Mrs X may disagree, but the Council was entitled to decide a site visit was not required.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mrs X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman