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. Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says resident’s objections were not properly considered, and the case officer did not respond to her. Mrs X says the planning decision was based on incorrect information and assumptions, and the development 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Mrs 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. 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 the objections received from residents and the parish council. However, the officer decided the proposal would be acceptable.
7. Mrs X says the planning decision was based on incorrect information. However, the Council has explained why the other extensions referred to in the case officers report were comparable to the proposed development. The case officer’s report also explained why the development was still acceptable even though it did not fully comply with planning guidance. I am satisfied the Council addressed Mrs X’s concerns about the separation distance referred to in the case officer’s report. The case officer also visited the site so was able to assess the relationship between the properties first hand before deciding the proposal was acceptable.
8. The Council has accepted the case officer’s report incorrectly referred to the number of bedrooms and habitable rooms proposed when assessing the acceptability of the parking arrangements for the development. However, I do not consider Mrs X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council has explained why the proposed parking is acceptable. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had the report been accurate in this regard.
9. Mrs X says the case officer did not respond to her concerns about the development. But the Council does not need to respond to residents about their objections outside of the consultation process.
10. I understand Mrs X is unhappy with the decision to grant planning permission for the development. But the Council was entitled to use their 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. Mrs X has complained about how the Council dealt with her request for information. She has also raised concerns about possible damage to her home. Mrs X can complain to the Information Commissioner if she is concerned about how the Council handled her information request as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters. Concerns about property damage will be a civil matter between Mrs X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mrs X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman