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 has dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the impact on her property was not properly considered and the development will cause overlooking and loss of privacy. Mrs X is also concerned the development will cause damage to her garage wall.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council.

(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 the decision was made.
6. 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 report referred to Mrs X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not have a detrimental impact in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or over dominance. The permission was also subject to a planning condition requiring Mrs X’s neighbour to install privacy panels to the balcony to prevent unreasonable overlooking.
7. 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 application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mrs X has also raised concerns about her property being damaged by the development. However, the Council would not be responsible for damage caused to a person’s property because of a planning application. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Mrs X and her neighbour.
9. The Council has accepted it has not responded to all Mrs X’s correspondence about the development and has apologised. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this response or achieve anymore for Mrs X.

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