Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for an extension at a property next to the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to conclude that fault is likely to have affected the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. In summary, she says:
• They were not given the opportunity to discuss their objections with the case officer,
• The Council should have requested a daylight and sunlight assessment from the applicant,
• The Council did not reconsult them when an amended plan showing the parking layout was submitted,
• The Council has failed to properly consider the impact on their amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 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))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X, and information about the planning application and validation requirements on the Council’s website.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, we review the process by which planning decisions are made, and consider if any fault is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant permission. If the outcome is likely to have still been the same but for any alleged fault, we will not pursue the complaint further.
7. I find there is not enough evidence to suggest that any fault in the determination of this application has affected the outcome. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate the complaint. In reaching this view , I am mindful that:
• The Council’s ‘Supplementary guidance: Validation requirements for householder applications (April,2009)' does not stipulate that a daylight/sunlight assessment must be submitted. The Council also explains that given the age of its local checklists, these are currently under review, so it relies on the national validation requirements only.
• There is no requirement for case officers to visit neighbouring properties or to enter into discussions about any objections that have been submitted.
• Even if Ms X had been reconsulted on the amended plan showing the parking layout, I am not persuaded the outcome would have been any different.
• The case officer visited the site and took photographs. The delegated report also includes a summary of Ms X’s objections. The report demonstrates the officer understood the proximity/relationship between the two buildings and goes on to consider the impact of the development on Ms X’s amenity. It was for the officer to reach a professional judgement on whether any impact was significant enough to warrant refusal of the application, even if Ms X disagrees with the conclusion reached.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that any fault in the handling of the application is likely to have affected the planning outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman