The Ombudsman's final decision
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.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X says the Council failed to properly assess the impact of the development and says the proposal will cause a significant loss of privacy and light to her home.
Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint and says it failed to answer her questions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
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.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided there would be no significant loss of outlook or light to Ms X’s home. The Council also further addressed the impact on Ms X’s property in response to her complaint and explained why there were no grounds to refuse the application in terms of the impact on overlooking and loss of light.
Ms X says the Council did not visit her property to assess the impact of the proposed development. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before determining a planning application and the impact can often be assessed from the development site.
I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer 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.
Ms 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 Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman