Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s retrospective planning application. She says the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with planning policy and based on inaccurate information. Ms X has also raised concerns about what happened during the planning committee meetings. Ms X says the development has a significant impact on her property and her home will lose value.

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 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 continue 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X contacted the Council to report that her neighbour had built an outbuilding in their garden without permission. Following this, Ms X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application to regularise the development and the Council has now granted planning permission.
6. Ms X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the planning application and what happened during the planning committee meetings. The Council has accepted there were issues with how the application was dealt with. It has apologised and said further training has been arranged. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response in this regard. I also do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of the issues with how the application was handled, as planning permission was not granted following the committee meetings Ms X has raised concerns about.
7. The Council has now granted retrospective permission for the development. I am satisfied it properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the proposal would preserve the amenities of neighbouring residents.
8. Ms X says her home will lose value. She has also raised concerns about the plans included with the application and says these do not reflect the development that has been built. However, loss of property value is not a material planning consideration. The Council has acknowledged the plans included with the application were not accurate. These have since been amended and the most recent case officer report explains why the development, as built, is acceptable.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response and Ms X has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman