Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council notified local people about a planning application or how it reached its decision to grant planning permission. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to notify her about a planning application for development on land next to her property. She says she has had to spend a significant amount of money on shrubs to screen the development and the situation has caused her significant distress.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council wrote to Ms X and other residents near the development. It says the letters were not returned as undeliverable. The Council does not need to show evidence that letters notifying neighbouring properties of a planning application were received only that they were sent. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
7. The Council has considered the impact of the development on Ms X’s property. The Council was concerned the original plans were too overbearing and so it negotiated a reduction in the size of the development. The Council’s produced a case officer report which considered the impact on Ms X’s property which said there would be no impact on her amenity especially as a 1.8 metre high fence was being put up on the site which would provide adequate screening. The fence did not require planning permission as this is allowed under permitted development rights.
8. As the Council has considered the application and plans in line with its policies and relevant planning considerations there is no evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to grant planning permission.
9. Ms X is unhappy that the development is taking place close to her boundary. This is not something the Council can deal with through planning law. This is a civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour and may be subject to the Party Wall Act 1996.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council notified people about the planning application or the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman