Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications in the area where the complainant lives. This is because parts of the complaint are late. We are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with planning applications for developments in the area where she lives. Miss X says the developments overlook her garden and devalue her property. Miss X also says the Council did not properly consult residents about the most recent proposal to build flats in the area.

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))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X has complained about various residential developments built near her home. But I consider her complaints about how the Council dealt with these planning applications late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council granted planning permission and the developments were built some years ago. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these issues as Miss X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
7. I have considered Miss X’s concerns about the Council’s more recent decision to grant planning permission for flats near her home. Miss X has raised many concerns about the decision to grant planning permission for the flats and says the development will have a significant impact on her property.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on nearby properties, before granting planning permission. The Council decided the proposal would have no adverse impact on privacy, outlook or light. The Council also considered the acceptability of the proposed changes to the plans following a second application to vary the planning conditions.
11. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development and says her home will lose value. But loss of value is not a material planning consideration. The Council was entitled to use its 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.
12. Miss X has also complained she was not notified about the application and therefore lost the opportunity to object. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Miss X has been caused significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council did properly consider the acceptability of the development and therefore it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Miss X known about the applications and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about and Miss X has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman