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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. She says the concerns she raised about the application were ignored and the development will create significant highway safety issues and cause a loss of light and privacy to her home.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the council 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and highway safety, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and loss of light and there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The Council also consulted the local highway authority, and no objections were raised about the development subject to planning conditions being imposed.
9. The acceptability of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meetings. Ms X spoke at the meetings and on two occasions the application was deferred as members requested additional information about the application and the highway safety issues raised.
10. Ms X has raised concerns about the information provided in the application about highway safety and says the visibility splays referred to cannot be achieved. However, the highway authority was consulted and was satisfied the development was acceptable. The permission is also subject to a condition requiring the visibility splays to be provided before the development can be occupied. If Ms X is concerned the planning conditions are being breached, she can contact the Council’s enforcement team.
11. Ms X has also referred to the Right to Light Act. While planning authorities do need to consider loss of light, the Right to Light Act is not a material planning consideration and instead will be a private civil matter.
12. 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.
13. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman