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 Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Miss X says the Council did not properly consider the impact the development would have on her home and wellbeing. She says the new extension will block her light and views and devalue 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether a council’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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and 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 Miss X’s property, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report said the proposed extension would not materially impact the amenity of neighbouring properties and there would not be demonstrable harm by loss of light to warrant refusal of the application.
I understand Miss X disagrees and says her home will lose value. But loss of value is not a material planning consideration. 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.
Miss X has also complained the case officer did not visit the site and believes her neighbour may be planning on building a two storey extension. But Mrs X’s neighbour will need to build the development in line with the approved plans. Councils are also not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools. In this case, the Council has explained how it was able to assess the application without visiting the development site.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman