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 and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. She says she was not notified about the application and therefore did not have the opportunity to object to the proposal. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on her property.

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.

(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. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the conservation area and neighbouring properties before deciding the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and would not unduly harm neighbouring amenity. The Council also explained further in response to Ms X’s complaint why it did not consider there would be an unacceptable impact on her home.
8. Ms X says her home will lose value because of the development. But loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
9. I understand Ms 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.
10. Ms X has also complained she was not notified about the application. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website. Ms X says she did not see any planning notices and did not know about the application until building work started. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council did still properly consider the acceptability of the development. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected to the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman