Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development 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 insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, raises several concerns about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. In summary, Mrs X says:
• The Council did not erect a site notice;
• The plans submitted by the applicant did not show the correct footprint of her property, as her extensions were not shown;
• The case officer failed to respond to her communications;
• The development is contrary to the Council’s planning policies, as it is overbearing, blocks her light and overlooks her garden.
• The Council should have requested a bat survey before determining the application.

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, or
• we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. But 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 Mrs X and the Council, which consisted of their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy that planning permission has been granted for her neighbour’s development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our main role here is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and to consider if any fault is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant permission.
7. I have seen nothing which suggests that fault in how the Council handled or determined the application is likely to have affected the planning outcome, so I do not consider Mrs X has suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged errors by the Council. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Even if the Council failed to erect a site notice, Mrs X became aware of the application and was able to submit her objections. So, she has not been caused a significant injustice by the alleged error.
• Whilst I accept it would have been frustrating when the case officer did not respond to Mrs X’s communications, I do not see that this has affected the planning outcome. I also note the Council has apologised that Mrs X was unable to contact the officer, and says any necessary amendments to practices will be put in place.
• Mrs X’s objection did not mention the potential presence of bats at the site, and there was no other information before the Council to suggest bats needed further consideration in this instance.
• The application documents include photographs showing the proximity of the existing dwelling to Mrs X’s property, and the delegated report summarises her concern about loss of light to bedroom windows. The report goes on to consider the impact of the development on Mrs X’s residential amenity. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the proposal was acceptable, even if Mrs X disagrees with that decision.
• Even if the plans had correctly shown the footprint of Mrs X’s property, I am satisfied that planning permission is likely to have been approved anyway.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council is likely to have affected the planning outcome, so she has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the alleged faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman