Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s retrospective planning application. Ms X says the Council failed to follow the proper procedures and the application contained inaccurate information. Ms X says the development does not comply with planning policies and 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X 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. Ms X’s neighbour applied for retrospective planning permission for an extension built without permission. It is not unusual for a retrospective application to be made to regularise a development and councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach.
7. 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 Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not result in adverse harm to neighbouring properties.
8. Ms X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application. She also says the plans submitted by the applicant were not accurate and the case officer did not communicate with her. However, the Council has explained why it was satisfied with the plans for the application and there is no requirement for councils to correspond with residents after they have commented on an application. I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application. Ms X was aware of the application and commented on the proposal before planning permission was granted.
9. Ms X says her home has been damaged by the development and the extension has affected her drainage. However, claims of property damage will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.
10. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment 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.
11. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has not suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the application was publicised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman