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 because of the Council’s actions.

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. She says there were errors in the case officer’s report and her objections were not considered. Mrs X says the development will be overbearing and cause a loss of light and privacy to her home.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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 and if the fault caused the complainant injustice.
7. Mrs X says the Council did not properly assess the impact the development would have on her home. She says the case officer’s report makes no reference to her objections and wrongly says the Town Council did not comment on the proposal.
8. The Council accepts there was an error in the case officer’s report as comments were received from the Town Council. It also says the officer’s report would have ideally referenced Mrs X’s objections and has apologised.
9. However, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused significant injustice as a result. The case officer considered the impact on loss of light to neighbouring properties but decided this would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council has also explained why it does not consider the development will cause unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council considered the impact on neighbouring amenity it is unlikely the planning decision would have been different had the case officer’s report correctly referred to the Town Council’s comments or detailed Mrs X’s objections.
10. Mrs X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not suffered any significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman