Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. It is unlikely we would find fault in the way it decided.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council did not have all the relevant information when they decided to approve a planning application. They said this adversely affected the outcome and believed the Planning Officer should have visited them to see the impact of the proposed development on them and their property.
2. X said this has affected their light amenity and has caused them distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered information about the application on the Council’s planning website.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. X said the Council was at fault because it did not visit them and fully understand the impact of a proposed development on their property. X was also unhappy with the Planning Officer’s assessment that their light levels would not be significantly affected by the development.
9. I have reviewed the documents relating to this planning application, including the elevation plans which show the proposed development and its relationship to X’s property and boundary wall. I have also considered the Planning Officer’s report.
10. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not only to help the council decide on the application. It is also to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. With an adequate report, we can see whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations.
11. The Planning Officer’s report has identified the dimensions of the proposed development, including the impact of a raised ground level between X’s property and the development. The Planning Officer also considered the relevant policy when determining the impact on neighbouring amenity and decided the impact was not significant.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
13. I have considered the steps the Council took, including the Planning Officer’s report, and the information it took account of when deciding to approve the planning application. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
14. Additionally, Council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council decided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman