Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a development at a site 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 of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council has failed to properly consider her concerns about loss of privacy and safety when determining her neighbour’s planning 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.

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

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 included their complaint correspondence.
• Information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting, available on the Council’s website.
• The Ombudsman’s Assessment code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council has granted planning permission for her neighbour’s development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Rather, we consider if there is evidence of fault in the way the decision was made.
6. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Planning Committee Members visited the application site.
• A statement prepared by Mrs X’s son was presented to the Committee.
• The report to the Committee considers the planning application history of the site and the reasons why previous applications were refused.
• Mrs X’s objections are summarised in the Committee report.
• The report goes on to consider the impact of the development on Mrs X’s amenity in some detail. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the impact on Mrs X’s amenity was acceptable, even if Mrs X disagrees with that judgement.
• A condition has been imposed on the condition requiring the use of obscure glazing in the side windows and door.
• Mrs X’s concerns about the close proximity of windows/doors being a fire hazard, would not be a material consideration when determining a planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman