Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s retrospective planning application. She says the Council failed to consider material planning issues and the decision to grant permission was based on inaccurate information and not in line with planning policy. Mrs X says the development has a significant impact on her property and encroaches on her land.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mrs X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause significant issues in terms of loss of light, overlooking or overbearing impact.
7. Mrs X says the Council failed to carry out a 45 degree light test. But the Council has explained why it did not consider it necessary to carry out a light test and I am satisfied the case officer properly assessed the impact on loss of light. The Council has accepted there was an error in the case officer’s report. However, I do not consider Mrs X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the Council did still properly consider the application.
8. Mrs X has raised many concerns about the accuracy of the boundary shown on the plans and says part of the development encroaches on her land. But it is not for the Council to get involved in landownership disputes. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Mrs X and her neighbour.
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 and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman