Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a 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 planning application. Mrs X says the Council ignored her objections and did not properly assess the impact the development would have on her property. Mrs X says the development is overbearing and will cause overlooking and loss of privacy.

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. (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 there would be no detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
7. Mrs X says the case officer should have visited her home to properly assess the impact of the development. She also says the planning documents misrepresented the size and location of her home. However, the case officer visited the application site and was therefore aware of the relationship between the properties before deciding the proposal was acceptable. Councils also do not need to visit neighbouring properties when assessing an application and the impact of a development can usually be determined from the development site.
8. 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

9. 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