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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the development has a significant impact on her property and encroaches on her land.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The officer also explained how the development overcame the reasons for refusing the previous application for the site. The case officer decided the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.
7. Ms X says the Council did not visit her property to assess the impact of the development. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before granting planning permission.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective 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.
9. Ms X says the Council took too long to respond to her questions and she lost the opportunity to request the application be called into the planning committee for determination. However, as the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had the application been referred to the Council’s planning committee.
10. Ms X says the development is not being built in line with the approved plans and is encroaching on her land. However, it is not for the Council to get involved in land ownership issues. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour. Ms X can report any concerns she has about possible breaches of planning control to the Council’s enforcement team so it can investigate her concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman