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. Mr and Mrs X have complained about how the Council has dealt with their neighbour’s planning application. They say the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with planning law, policies and guidance and the Council has failed to explain why the proposal would still be acceptable. Mr and Mrs X say the development will have a significant impact on their home in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

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. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and 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, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr and Mrs X’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided there would not be an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.
8. Mr and Mrs X say the Council has failed to explain why the development is acceptable even though it does not comply with planning policies. But the case officer’s report does set out the relevant policies and explains why the development will comply. Mr and Mrs X may disagree with the case officer’s assessment of the application, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement.
9. Mr and Mrs X say the Council’s planning decision has not taken the Equality Act into consideration. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether or not the Council has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Councils will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the impact the development will have on Mr and Mrs X.
10. I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, as the Council properly considered the acceptability of the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr and Mrs X have 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

12. We will not investigate Mr and 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