The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s planning decision allowing development at the property next door to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says there has been Council mismanagement of a planning decision for development at the property next door to her home. She says the Council did not follow its own guidelines and policies and as a result her property is overshadowed with a side bedroom window having lost light and outlook.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call fault. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X’s representative, including the Council’s responses to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X’s representative the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what was said.
My assessment
Ms X complained to the Council following its decision to grant planning permission for development at the residential property next door to her home. Ms X said the side extension that had been approved as part of the application was unacceptable because of its proximity to her property and its impact on a side bedroom window.
The Council responded to the various concerns Ms X raised under the three stages of its complaints procedure. It acknowledged that there had been some odd phrases used in the officer report and that an unenforceable condition relating to an outbuilding had been included. However, it concluded that the decision had been correct and that the impact on Ms X’s property was not such that permission for the application should have been refused. It recognised that the light received to Ms X’s first floor side bedroom window would be altered but that as it was a secondary window, and there was a primary window for the same room, the difference was negligible.
While I understand Ms X is disappointed by the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The impact on Ms X’s property was specifically considered in the officer report and though the Council’s own investigation identified some minor fault, an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
In responding to my draft decision, Ms X’s representative says the impact of the neighbour’s development on Ms X’s home was assessed subjectively by planning officers, that guidelines were not followed and that while it is acknowledged that the bedroom window is a secondary window, it was installed for a reason. However, guidelines provide guidance, and it is for officers, using their professional judgement, to assess the impact of proposed planning developments. Here it was recognised there would be a change to the light received by the secondary bedroom window but that it was negligible. Had the window concerned been the only or primary window serving the bedroom, this would have been reflected in the decision. Ms X’s representative appears to imply there was some form of illegal collusion between the neighbours and the planning officer but if he has any evidence to support such a view, he can present this to the police.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman