Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to tell the complainant about a planning application, the way it considered the planning application and a breach of the data protection regulations. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• failed to tell her about her neighbours’ planning application
• failed to correctly describe the proposed development
• failed to follow planning law and the Equality Act; and
• breached the Data Protection Regulations
2. She wants :
• the planning permission changed to allow a single storey extension only
• the Council not to publish personal information with planning objections; and
• training for staff on taking disabilities into account when considering planning applications.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the Council failed to send her a letter telling her about her neighbour’s planning application to extend their home and convert their loft.
7. I cannot know why Mrs X did not receive the Council’s letter. However, in response to her complaint, the Council says its records show it sent the letters. The Council does not have to provide proof of postage. I consider that further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
8. Mrs X became aware of the planning application so could put in her objections. The Council tells neighbours about planning applications to enable them to comment or object. As Mrs X was able to put in her objections to the application I do not consider she has suffered a significant personal injustice because she did not receive the letter.
9. Mrs X says the Council has not described the proposal correctly. The Council described the neighbour’s proposal as a single storey side and rear extension with changes to the roof to include dormer windows and a roof light.
10. Mrs X says the roof has been converted to include liveable space, therefore it is a two-storey extension and should be described as such. However, the Council’s description is correct. The existing roof has been converted to living space and the neighbours have not added a second floor. Therefore I do not consider the Council’s description of the proposed development is incorrect.
11. I understand Mrs X believes the Council failed to consider the Equality Act when it assessed the planning proposal. In her objections she provided information about her visual disability which she says would be impacted by the extension due to loss of light. She also objected because of:
• the proposal is out of keeping with the rest of the street
• overshadowing; and
• overbearing, noise and impact on air quality because of the proximity of the building to her property.
12. The Planning Officer’s report on the proposal includes a summary of Mrs X’s objections. It also details the Planning Officer’s professional opinion on why the proposal overcomes the objections.
13. Mrs X says the Council has failed to follow the Equality Act. However, her personal circumstances are not a material planning consideration (other than impacts on access on someone with a physical disability). The report shows the Council gave due consideration to her objections, before deciding to grant planning permission.
14. The Council, as local planning authority, must consider all relevant planning matters, including objections received. However, it has discretion about what weight to give to them. The Ombudsman’s role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters, not to reach their own view of them where there is no fault.
15. From the information I have seen it appears the Council has considered Mrs X’s objections and the impact of her neighbour’s proposed extension and loft conversion on her home.
16. Mrs X also complains the Council breached the data protection regulations by publishing details of her disability online with her objections to the planning application.
17. The Council apologised for publishing the information. It arranged for the details to be removed from the published objections and confirms the document was not viewed before the sensitive personal information was removed. It also says it has spoken to the member of staff involved to ensure publication of such information is not repeated.
18. We consider this is a suitable remedy to this part of Mrs X’s complaint and further investigation of this point will not lead to a different outcome.
19. Finally, Mrs X wants the neighbours’ development restricted to the ground floor only. We cannot achieve this outcome. Planning permission has been granted for the single storey extensions and the conversion of the roof space to habitable accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• Investigation into her non-receipt of the notification letter will not lead to a different outcome. And as Mrs X was able to object to the application we do not consider she suffered a significant personal injustice on this point.
• We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
• We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s description of the neighbour’s proposed development.
• We are satisfied with the Council’s apology for publishing Mrs X’s personal data and the action it has taken to rectify the error. We do not consider that further investigation of the point will lead to a different outcome.
• Mrs X wants the neighbour’s development to be restricted to ground floor extensions only. We cannot achieve this outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman