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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y has complained on behalf of Ms X about how the Council dealt with a planning application and its decision to grant permission for a development near her home. Mr Y says the development will impact Ms X’s property and the Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s concerns about the proposal. Ms X is also concerned about how the development will impact her tenancy rights.

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 Mr Y 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. However, the officer decided the proposal would not result in a significant loss of light, outlook or privacy to neighbouring properties.
7. Ms X says she contacted the Council about the development but did not receive a response and her concerns were not addressed in the case officer’s report. Ms X also says the Council did not visit neighbouring properties to fully assess the impact of the proposed development and did not consult residents about changes to the plans.
8. The Council says it did not receive any correspondence from Ms X. However, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as the Council still properly considered the acceptability of the development. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had the Council received Ms X’s objections. There is also no requirement for the Council to visit neighbouring properties and the acceptability of a proposal can often be determined from the development site. The Council has explained why it did not consider it necessary to consult residents about changes to the plans.
9. Ms X is concerned about how the development will impact her tenancy rights. However, matters relating to property ownership are not a material planning consideration and will instead be a private civil matter between the relevant parties.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman