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 suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development next to her home. Mrs X says she was not consulted before planning permission was granted and the new development has a significant impact on her property.
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 Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
In this case, the Council says it wrote to Mrs X to tell her about the proposed development. Mrs X disputes this and says she lost the opportunity to object to the proposal.
However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mrs X has been caused significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mrs X’s property, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the development would not have a material impact on the amount of light reaching Mrs X’s home and would not be unacceptably overbearing. The officer also decided the proposal would not allow direct overlooking into Mrs X’s property. The planning permission was subject to conditions, one of which required the developer to obscurely glaze and fix shut the first floor windows facing towards Mrs X’s home. The Council is currently looking into Mrs X’s concerns that this condition has not been complied with.
I understand Mrs X does not agree 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. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mrs X known about the application and objected to the proposal.
Mrs X says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission does not comply with the Human Rights Act.
We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council did properly consider the impact the development would have on Mrs X before granting planning permission.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman