Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application for a development near the complainant's home. There is not enough evidence to conclude that any fault has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council approving a planning application for a development on land near her house, as she says the decision was based on flawed information about the level of homes along her road. Mrs X says the development will decrease the value of her home, worsen flooding of her garden, and breaches her human rights due to the impact on her amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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 Mrs X.
• information on the Council’s website about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting.
• information on the Council’s website about its planning policies.
• the Council’s response to a separate complaint about the planning application.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for this development. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision, and we consider whether any fault is likely to have affected the planning outcome.
6. I find there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any fault has affected the outcome of the planning application here. Mrs X has therefore not been caused a significant injustice by any errors in the handling of the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Objections from interested parties are summarised in the report to the Planning Committee.
• Photographs of views from within and around the site, including from a property on Mrs X’s road, were presented to the Planning Committee.
• Mrs X spoke at the Planning Committee meeting, highlighting her concerns about the proposals.
• Relevant consultees raised no objections to the proposal on flooding grounds.
• Having visited the site and a property on Mrs X’s road, the case officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement as to whether the proposal caused unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity, and therefore whether it complied with Policy 33 of the Local Plan.
• The report to the Planning Committee describes the existing topography of the land, noting an appreciable difference in land levels, and that Mrs X’s road sits at a lower level to the proposed building.
• The report goes on to consider the impact on neighbouring amenity in some detail. Members of the Planning Committee also discussed the concerns of neighbouring properties, and the impact of the proposal on their amenity and human rights. This resulted in a condition being imposed on the permission requiring the submission of a management plan to control the use of the proposed building.
• The report also considers flooding and drainage.
• Loss of property value is not a planning matter which can be taken into account when determining an application.
• Although the Council accepts the level of a property on Mrs X’s road is not accurately shown on the cross-section plan, the proposal is still in accordance with the Council’s separation distance guidance, and the British Research Establishment’s daylight/sunlight guidance.

• The Ombudsman cannot decide if a council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not the council 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 Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council had due regard to the impact the development would have on neighbouring properties.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that any fault in the Council’s handling of the application is likely to have affected the planning outcome, so she has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman