Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also we do not consider Ms X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• Failed to follow the correct process for publicising a planning application.
• Decided to approve the application based on inaccurate facts.
• Failed to consider all objections.
• Decided to approve the application contrary to its own and national planning policy, and its own previous decision on other sites in the area.
2. Ms X says the new property will cause overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of amenity.
3. Ms X wants the Council to revoke the planning permission. If this is not possible it should alter the permission to be less overbearing and reduce the overlooking. She also wants compensation for loss of value to her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complains about the decision to approve a planning application for a new house next to her home. She says:
• There was no mention of tree removal on the site.
• The Council ignored objections on the impact on loss of trees, ecology, character and appearance of conservation area.
• The Council did not carry out the consultation correctly.
8. In reviewing the information I have noted:
• The planning officer report postdates the closing date for representations.
• There were no objections from the Council’s ecology officer.
• The case officer report includes a summary of the objections received.
• The site is within the village envelope.
• The report considers the impact on the character and appearance of the area and conservation area and the impact on Ms X’s home.
9. Ms X says the Council decided to approve the application for the house before the developer informed them of notice from the developer that trees would be removed. However, the Council must determine the applications it receives. The fact the developer put in notice of tree clearance after the planning permission was granted for the new property is not the fault of the Council. Nor does it make the application for the new property fraudulent
10. In assessing this complaint I am mindful that:
• The development site is an infill between two properties (one belonging to Ms X) within a village.
• According to the Council’s local plan, the principle of the development is acceptable.
• There are/were no preserved trees on the site.
• There is nothing which prevents site clearance.
11. Ms X says the Council failed to follow the correct process for publicising the application. The Council confirms the application was validated the 6 November. The notification letters were not issued until the 27 November. However the site notice shows the deadline for making representations did not expire until 11 January. Also, Ms X submitted her objections on 13 November. As Ms X and other were able to make representations before the deadline I do not consider she had suffered any injustice on this point.
12. Ms X wants the planning permission withdrawn or altered. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application for a new property next to her home.
• I do not consider Ms X suffered any personal injustice as she was able to make representations which were considered by the Council before it decided to approve the application.
• We cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman