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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Ms X says the approved plans included her property as part of the development site. Ms X has also raised concerns about the impact of the proposal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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. (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 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. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the proposal was acceptable.
8. Ms X says incorrect information was provided with the application about the ownership of her wall and window. However, the Council has explained why it was satisfied with the ownership certificate submitted by the applicant. It is also not for the Council to get involved in land ownership disputes. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman