Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application. She says the Council did not properly assess the impact of the development on her residential amenity, particularly with regards to loss of light and outlook.

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. (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.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 an organisation 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
7. The evidence I have seen shows the Council:
• considered Mrs X’s verbal and written objections;
• carried out site visits; and
• carried out a light degree test.
8. The Council acknowledged there was some impact on Mrs X’s residential amenity, including some loss of light and outlook. However, it decided the impact was not so detrimental to justify refusing the application.
9. Mrs X says the Council should have given greater weight to the impact on her amenity and carried out further light assessments. The weight given to planning considerations is a matter of planning judgement. It is not our role to reconsider the merits of the application or decide what weight should have been given to Mrs X’s objections. We can consider whether the Council took those matters into account and followed proper processes in reaching its decision.
10. The Council considered relevant evidence and statutory guidance in reaching its decision. The fact the Council did not carry out further light assessments does not make its assessment flawed and I am satisfied the Council took appropriate and proportionate action to assess the impact of the development on Mrs X’s property. As there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman