Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a development near the complainant’s home or a possible breach of planning control. 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 planning applications for a residential development near her home. She says the Council failed to properly assess the impact on her property and the applications do not comply with planning guidance or the Council’s policies. Mrs X also says the development has not been built in line with the approved plans and has a significant impact on her amenity.

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))
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 the decision was made.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s reports referred to the impact on Mrs X’s home. However, the officer decided the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Mrs X says one of the new properties is too close to her home. She says as the new dwelling faces her home there should be at least 25 metres between the properties. The Council says the new dwelling sits at an oblique angle to Mrs X’s home and has no windows at the rear first floor level. It therefore says the separation distance Mrs X has referred to would not apply and there were no justifiable grounds on which to refuse planning permission. Mrs X disputes this and has referred to the Council’s Householder Design Guide. But a planning authority does not always need to strictly follow all policies on all applications and the Council has explained the Householder Design Guide is unadopted.
9. Mrs X says the case officer failed to visit her property to assess the impact of the development. But councils are not required to visit neighbouring properties when assessing a planning application and the impact of the proposal can often be assessed from the development site. The Council also visited Mrs X’s home in response to her complaint.
10. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the applications were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mrs X has also complained the development is not being built in line with the approved plans and one of the new dwellings is closer to the boundary with her home than it should be.
12. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action.
13. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mrs X’s concerns and an enforcement officer visited the site and took measurements. However, the Council decided the development was being built in line with the plans and therefore it had no grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered Mrs X’s concerns before deciding there had not been a breach it is unlikely I could find fault.
14. Mrs X has complained 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 properly considered the impact the development will have on Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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