Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development near her home because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council granted planning permission for a development close to her home without proper consideration.
2. Mrs X said the new building will impact on her amenity, including overlooking her property and affecting her privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the complainant.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because:
• the Council officer’s report considered Mrs X’s concerns about the impact of the development on her amenity including privacy, risk of flooding, as well as other relevant factors including third party objections. The officer concluded the impact of the development on neighbouring properties including Mrs X’s was not unacceptable and was in line with its policies and national frameworks. The Council’s delegated planning panel decided to approve the application. Because the officer’s report considers the relevant factors there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation; and
• the Council approved the application through a delegated planning panel. Mrs X said the application should have gone to a full committee hearing. The Council’s scheme of delegation says a principal planning officer alongside the “Planning Delegation Panel” can decide which matters to refer to the full committee. The record shows the Panel, alongside a principal planning officer, decided the application did not require a full committee hearing and could be decided through its delegated authority. Because the Council followed its process, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman