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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning applications. Miss X says the Council failed to notify her about the first application and the new extension will have a significant impact on her home. Miss X also says the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
5. In this case, the Council says it wrote to Miss X to tell her about the proposed development. Miss X disputes this. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Miss X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
6. The case officer still considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause any undue loss of light, outlook or general amenity.
7. I understand Miss X disagrees. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Miss X known about the development and objected.
8. Furthermore, Miss X’s neighbour has since made another application for an amended version of the development. Miss X was aware of this second application and commented on the proposal. The case officer's report referred to Miss X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer again decided the impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable. Miss X disagrees, but this was a decision the case officer was entitled to make. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered this application it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Miss X has also raised concerns about a tree and hedge along the boundary with her home being affected by the development. However, it is not for the Council to get involved with boundary disputes. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Miss X and her neighbour.
10. Miss X has said her human rights have been ignored. We cannot decide if the Council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not the Council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the impact the development will have on Miss X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Miss X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman