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. Mrs X has complained on behalf of herself and Mr Y about how the Council dealt with their neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the development will have a significant impact on their property and parking in the area and the Council failed to properly consult residents about the application.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and Mr Y 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 and parking, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mrs X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause harmful loss of light, outlook or a sense of enclosure.
7. Mrs X says the Council previously refused permission for a smaller extension at the site. However, the previous application was not refused due to the impact on neighbouring properties and the case officer’s report explained how the issues with the original application were overcome.
8. 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 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.
9. Mrs X has also said the Council failed to properly publicise the application. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website. The Council’s statement of Community Involvement says for minor developments it will also either erect a site notice or notify the residents of the neighboring properties. As the Council publicised the application as required, it is also unlikely I could find fault in this regard. Furthermore, Mrs X was notified and objected to the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman