Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council granted planning permission for her neighbour’s extension without notifying her of the application or properly considering the impact it would have on her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
5. The Council has explained that it sent notification letters to adjoining neighbours but it did not send a letter to Ms X because she does not share a boundary with the application site. The Council’s approach is in accordance with its policy and does not amount to fault.
6. Although the Council did not consult Ms X on the application the planning officer’s report shows it considered the impact of the development on her property and decided this was acceptable. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s judgement and rationale but I have see no grounds to question it. The main reason for the Council’s view that the development did not significantly impact Ms X’s property relates to the distance between the two properties and there is no evidence of fault in its decision.
7. Ms X says she has incurred costs to reduce overlooking to her property but this was her choice; it is not the result of any fault by the Council and we cannot therefore recommend the Council reimburses her for it. Ms X also has concerns over building noise and the impact of the development on the value of her property but these are not issues the Council could consider when determining the application.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman