Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a decision to approve a planning application for development near her property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a decision to approve a planning application for development near her home. She says the development impacts on her privacy. She wants the Council to apologise and compensate her for the distress caused.

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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted planning permission for a development near Ms X’s home in 2019. The planning officer’s report considered the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity, including Ms X’s property. It decided as there was a separation distance of about 30 metres between Ms X’s property and the nearest new dwelling, the development was considered acceptable in term of overlooking and there was no adverse impact.
7. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council appears to have appropriately considered the impact on Ms X’s residential amenity before deciding to approve the application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
9. Although the Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint, in its complaint responses it offered to approach the developer to see if they would agree to plant an additional tree at the boundary of Ms X’s property to improve privacy. It is open to Ms X to accept this offer, if she chooses.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman