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 Mr X, has complained about a development built on land adjoining his property. Mr X did not object to the planning application as he believed the new outbuilding would be screened by the mature trees at the development site. The trees have since been removed and Mr X says the development is now visible from his property and his privacy has been compromised. Mr X says he was misled by the Council when he was consulted about the application and it should compensate him for the stress he has suffered and the cost of the trees he has now planted to screen the development.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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. Mr X says he was misled by the Council and did not object to the proposal as he believed the development would be screened by the existing mature trees at the site. However, it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council in this regard as the trees were not protected, and the tree owner was entitled to remove them from their land.
7. Mr X says the outbuilding is now visible from his property and says his privacy will be affected. However, 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 decided the development would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. I understand Mr X says the removal of the trees increases the impact on his home and the development is now visible. But a development is not automatically unacceptable just because it can be viewed from neighbouring properties and the case officer did not rely on the presence of the trees in their report when assessing the impact on residential amenity.
8. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal 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.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman