Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Mrs X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on incorrect and ambiguous information and the Council failed to properly consider the impact on her property. Mrs X says the new development will cause 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:

• 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. 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 any injustice was caused as a result.
6. 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 Mrs X’s home but decided the development would not cause loss of light or privacy or overshadowing. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable.
7. Mrs X says the case officer’s report incorrectly referred to a boundary hedge. The Council accepts the case officer’s reference to the hedge was a mistake as there are actually large trees along the boundary. However, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused significant injustice by this error as screening does still exist along the boundary. The case officer also visited the site and was aware of the relationship between the properties before deciding the proposal was acceptable. Therefore, I consider it unlikely the error in the case officer’s report impacted the planning decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman