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 Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission is not in line with its planning guidance and her objections were not properly considered. Ms X says the extension will block views from her home and cause a loss of light. She also says the development is not in keeping with the area.

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

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 properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on Ms X’s home and the surrounding area but decided there would not be a detrimental impact.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees and says the Council did not visit her to discuss her concerns before planning permission was granted. Ms X also says the development will devalue her home. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when considering a planning application and loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
10. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman