Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. 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 of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council failed to properly consider her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council failed to properly examine the plans and to assess them against its policies, failed to advise her neighbour about their legal responsibilities, did not carry out a site visit and did not publish the planning officer’s report at the time it made its decision. She also considers the Council’s consultation was flawed.

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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council granted planning permission for Ms X’s neighbour’s development in 2021. Ms X says the Council did not publish full plans for consultation purposes and did not upload the planning officer’s report explaining the reasons for its decision at the time of the decision. She says she did not realise until the build commenced that the extension would impact on her property.
6. The Council has explained that the plans submitted by the applicant were sufficient to assess the impact of the proposal and the planning offer’s report shows the Council considered the issues Ms X complains about. Ms X commented on the proposal at the time and did not raise any concerns about the adequacy of the plans but even if she had, it is the Council’s role to decide whether they are acceptable. The planning officer’s report shows the officer considered the impact of the proposal including on Ms X’s amenity and decided it was acceptable. I have seen nothing to show the decision is irrational or perverse and it is not for us to question the officer’s judgement.
7. There is no requirement for the Council to carry out a site visit or to advise Ms X’s neighbour about their responsibilities under civil law and although the Council accepts it did not immediately publish the planning officer’s report setting out how the Council reached its decision, we cannot say this wrongly affected its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman