Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consult residents about changes to the plans and she lost the opportunity to make further comments. Mrs X says the development will have a significant impact on her property and her home will lose value.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs 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. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly notify her about changes to the plans and she therefore did not have the opportunity to comment on the amended proposal. The Council has accepted there was an error in the letter sent to Mrs X as the description of the development had not been changed. The Council also said the consultation letter was sent without due regard to the Christmas break.
8. However, I do not consider Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the amended development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on neighbouring amenity. However, the officer decided the development would not adversely affect Mrs X’s home to an unacceptable degree.
9. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mrs X objected to the amended proposal.
10. Mrs X says her home will lose value and the new development will encroach on her land. But loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. It is also not for the Council to get involved in land ownership issues. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Mrs X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman