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 complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Miss X says the Council did not consult residents about the application and failed to properly assess the impact the development would have on her home.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 Miss 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. 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.
7. In this case, the Council says it wrote to the affected neighbouring residents. Miss X disputes this, but even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Miss X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. Miss X did know about the application and had the opportunity to object to the proposal.
8. I understand Miss X says she did not comment on the application as she was misled by the developer. However, the Council was not responsible for any comments or information provided by the applicant. The details for the proposed development would have also been available on the Council’s website for residents to view.
9. Miss X says the Council failed to properly assess the impact the development would have on her home and the loss of light it would cause to her property. But I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring properties, including Miss X’s home. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause any significant loss of light or privacy to neighbouring occupiers and would not increase levels of overlooking.
10. Miss X says the Council did not carry out adequate impact or light assessments. She also says her home will lose value. However, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. The case officer also visited the site and was able to assess the potential impact and relationship between the properties. The Council was not required to carry out further assessments or visit neighbouring properties and I am satisfied the case officer’s report properly explained why the development was considered acceptable. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
11. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, as the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Miss X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman