The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a planning application for a development next to Ms X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council approving the demolition and redevelopment of a property next to her home. She says the planning case officer failed to give proper consideration to the effect on her amenity because there were errors on the plans. She also says wording in another application for an extension to the development contradicted the decision to approve it. She says that the new development has caused unacceptable overshadowing of her home.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant. I have considered the planning documents published by the Council I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X says the Council approved a planning application to replace an existing bungalow with a new build house which dominates her home. She says the site plans included symbols for the north orientation which were reversed and that this resulted in the case officer misunderstanding the impact of the new development on her home in terms of overshadowing.
There is no standardised form of representing north on architectural plans and computer-aided design software offers a variety of different symbols. However, from the wording of the officer’s report, the location plan and the orientation of the buildings on the plans it is unlikely that the officer was confused by the north indicator.
The plans were approved and development started. Ms X also complained about a previous application for an extension to the proposed development which was approved in 2020. She says the case officer included a statement in the conclusion which contradicts the decision to approve the plans. It is clear that this is an error but the decision notice and the decision recommendation on the officer’s report was for approval. This application was subsequently withdrawn in 2021 following Ms X’s complaint.
There is insufficient evidence that the error on the extension plan caused Ms X any injustice or that the approval of the development was not properly considered.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a planning application for a development next to Ms X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman