Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Mrs X say the Council’s decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information and the development will have a significant impact on her property.

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))

3. 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. Mrs X’s neighbour applied to the Council for planning permission for development at their property.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact. The Council also explained further in response to Mrs X’s complaint why the development would be acceptable.
9. Mrs X says the planning decision was based on inaccurate drawings and the development significantly breaches the 45-degree rule. But the Council has explained why it was satisfied with the plans and issues with the annotations on the drawing did not impact its assessment of the application. The case officer also visited the site so was able to assess the impact of the proposal and relationship between the properties first hand.
10. The Council has accepted the development does not fully comply with the 45-degree rule. Although this matter is not addressed in the case officer’s report, the Council has properly explained why there will still not be an unacceptable impact on Mrs X’s home. Therefore, I consider it unlikely the planning decision would be different had the case officer included more detail in their report.
11. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. I will not investigate this complaint further as I can see no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman