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 complainants have also not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs X, have complained about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application for a development near their home. They say the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information and the proper processes were not followed. Mr and Mrs X say the development is unsafe, out of character with the area and blocks light to their property.

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 Mr and 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 the decision was made.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr and Mrs X’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the fence would not affect outlook or cause overshadowing. The case officer also said any harm caused by the development would not warrant refusal of the application. The fact a similar sized fence could be erected without the need for planning permission was also a valid fallback position that the Council had to take into account.
7. Mr and Mrs X dispute the Council’s measurements, but the Council has explained how it measured the fence. The case officer also visited the site and therefore was able to assess the impact of the fence first hand before deciding it was acceptable.
8. I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to properly publicise the application and the parish council’s comments were not included in the case officer’s report. But even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I could not say Mr and Mrs X suffered any significant injustice as they were told about the application and objected. The concerns the parish council raised about the height of the fence were also addressed in the case officer’s report.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr and Mrs X have also not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman