Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process which granted permission for a development near her property. There is not enough evidence of injustice to Mrs X caused by the planning notification process to justify us investigating. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning decision-making process which would have changed the outcome to warrant an investigation. The boundary issue would be a private civil matter between Mrs X and the owner of the development site.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next to a site which received planning permission for residential development. She complains the Council:
1. failed to properly notify her or neighbours of the planning application;
2. failed to properly consider the impact of the development on her property;
3. failed to deal with the practical impacts of the new development being built close to her boundary.
2. Mrs X says the matter has caused her stress. She has concerns about the impact of the development on her boundary hedging, its overshadowing and overbearing impacts on her property, and the loss of her view. Mrs X wants the Council to do proper assessments of developments’ impacts before deciding applications, to include visits from planning officers, and to bring back written notifications of proposed developments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has accepted there were delays in the planning notification process. But Mrs X was aware of the application before the consultation period ended. The planning documents indicate Mrs X had the opportunity to make representations on the application as part of the Council’s process. The planning officer’s report does not list Mrs X’s address as an objector, but the body of the report refers to her address and the objections. This shows the Council received and took account of Mrs X’s objections, despite the listing error. There is not enough evidence that Mrs X was disadvantaged or caused an injustice by the notification process here which would justify an investigation.
7. The report contents show other neighbours also submitted comments on the application. We will not take into account whether other parties were unable to provide their comments, as that would not be an injustice to Mrs X.
8. Mrs X says the Council’s consideration of the impact of the development on her property was not adequate. She says the planning officer did not visit her property during the assessment. The Council says the officer visited the location and was not required to view the development site from Mrs X’s property. Officers are required to gather sufficient information to inform their assessment, but there is no duty on them to make site visits to specific addresses during that process. It is for the officer to determine what visits are required. There is not enough evidence of fault in this part of the process to justify an investigation.
9. Mrs X also says the planning officer did not include a discussion of land levels in their report. The Council accepts details of finished floor levels in the report would have provided certainty about the development’s height. But the officer’s report includes consideration of the impact of the development on Mrs X’s property in terms of overlooking and massing. The report notes there would be a single first-floor window in the elevation facing Mrs X’s property, which is at a high level and serves a non-habitable room. The report shows the officer considered the overlooking issue and took the view that the planned development would not cause such harm to Mrs X’s property to warrant a refusal. The officer also considered the issue of massing or overshadowing, noting that some of Mrs X's outside space would be affected. They took the view that this impact would not be sufficient to sustain a refusal. While the officer’s consideration of levels should have been included in the report, it does demonstrate their consideration of the impact of the development on Mrs X’s property. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process which, but for the fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of such fault in the Council’s planning assessment process here to warrant investigation.
10. Mrs X says the development being built close to her boundary will cause practical maintenance issues. This is not a material planning matter for the Council to consider. Any claimed boundary impacts would be between the owners of the abutting properties, where the Party Wall Act may be relevant. If Mrs X considers the actions of the developer in implementing the permission have an adverse impact on her boundary, this would be a private civil matter. She may wish to seek independent legal advice on this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of injustice to Mrs X caused by the planning notification process to justify us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process which would have changed the planning outcome to warrant an investigation;
• the boundary issue raised would be a private civil matter between her and the owner of the development site.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman