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 Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Miss X says the case officer failed to visit the site and did not properly assess her concerns about the impact the extension will have on her home. Miss X says the development will cause a significant loss of light to her property and the matter has affected her mental health.

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 a council’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 Miss 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 Miss X’s property, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report said the proposal would not have an adverse impact on Miss X’s home and was in line with the Council’s policy. The impact was further addressed in response to Miss X’s complaint and the Council said the impact on Miss X’s property would not warrant the refusal of the application.
8. Miss X says the case officer did not visit the site to properly assess the impact of the development. However, council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using tools such as Google Streetview. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has explained how it was able to assess the proposal without visiting the site.
9. I understand Miss 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 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.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman