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 dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the Council failed to re-consult residents after the plans for the development were amended and she therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the changes. Mrs X says the development does not comply with the Council’s policy and will have a significant impact on her home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X’s neighbour applied to the Council for planning permission to extend their home. The Council consulted residents, including Mrs X, but no objections were received. However, before planning permission was granted, the proposed plans were amended.
The Council says it considered if it was appropriate to re-consult residents following the changes to the plans but decided this was not necessary. Mrs X disagrees and says the changes to the development affected her property and she should have been given the opportunity to comment. However, even if I were to 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 neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the development would not have a significant impact on Mrs X’s home in terms of loss of light or outlook. The planning permission was also subject to a condition requiring some of the windows to be obscurely glazed to ensure there would be no detrimental impact on Mrs X’s privacy. The Council also further addressed Mrs X’s concerns about the impact the development would have on her home in its response to her complaint.
I understand Mrs 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. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mrs X known about the changes to the plans and objected to the amended proposal.
Mrs X has also complained about how the Council has dealt with her complaint and says it has been difficult to contact. 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 as a result of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman