Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before decided to grant planning permission for a sight next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, says the Council decided to approve a planning application based on inaccurate information. She also says the Council failed to consider the impact of the planning proposal on her privacy.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to withdraw the planning permission. If this is not possible she wants the Council:
• to ensure the developer builds a suitably high fence; and
• compensate her for stress, loss of light and privacy

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new property on a plot next to her home. However, the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Our role is to consider whether there is fault in the way the decision was made.
7. I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Planning Officer visited the site
• the Tree Officer visited the site
• the Planning Officer’s report specifically refers to site of Mrs X’s home and considers the impact of the new house on the light received and provacy
• there is no requirement for the Council to conduct a dialogue with objectors to a planning application
• the proposed development meets the criteria for decision under the Council’s scheme of delegation; and
• the Council can extend the period for determining a planning application with the agreement of the applicant.
8. Also, Mrs X’s objections are summarised in the Planning Officer’s report.
9. The report considers 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.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman