The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact the development will have on her property and the new building will cause a significant loss of light.
Mrs X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council visited her home and said the case officer misread the change in ground levels at the site and may not have fully appreciated the impact the proposed development would have on the sun path. The Council also accepted there were errors in the case officer’s report in relation to the height of the proposed garage compared to the existing garage. This led to an underappreciation of the impact the new building would have on Mrs X’s property.
However, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice because of these errors. The Council explained why the new garage would still be acceptable. It said the case officer understood the scale of the proposal and the overshadowing to Mrs X’s property would likely not be worse than that caused by trees previously at the site. The Council has also said the difference between the building approved and what would be allowed using permitted development rights would not have a significantly different impact.
I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard, and the fact a similar sized building could be erected without the need for planning permission was a valid fallback position the Council had to take into account. Therefore, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had there not been errors in the case officer’s initial assessment of the application.
Mrs 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.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman