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 Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. She says the new dwelling will be too close to her property, be overbearing and cause loss of light and privacy. She says the Council did not properly consider her objections and her human rights have been breached.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered 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 the decision was made.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on neighbouring properties and the officer decided there would not be any substantive impacts on amenity in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. The case officer acknowledged the separation distance between Mrs X’s home and the new dwelling would be less than what is normal practice, but the officer explained why this would still be acceptable.
8. I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable and 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.
9. Mrs X also says her human rights have been breached. We cannot decide if a 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 a council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has considered the impact the development will have on Mrs X and the case officer’s report does consider the Human Rights Act implications for the proposed development.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman