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. Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She said the decision to grant planning permission was not properly considered and the Council treated her unfairly in the way it considered her objection. Mrs X said the Council’s decision has caused her distress and she will be affected by light pollution. Mrs X now wants the Council to change the plans

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
3. (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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the building plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations 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 planning application, including the impact on neighbouring properties, including Mrs X’s property. The case file has a record of Mrs X’s objections, and the plans were available to the decision maker before granting planning permission.
9. Mrs X was also unhappy the case officer visited other properties, but not hers. Council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. They are expected to exercise professional judgement about site visits they see as necessary in any application process.
10. I understand Mrs X disagrees 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. In any case, notwithstanding my consideration of fault, given the impact Mrs X has identified, neither is there enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation.
11. Finally, Mrs X now wants the Council to change the plans in line with her wishes and this is not something we can direct the Council to do.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman