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 Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the application was not properly considered and the decision to grant permission was based on incorrect information. Mrs X says the development will cause a significant loss of light to her property and her garden will be overshadowed and overlooked.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs 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 the area and Mrs X’s property, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mrs X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the residents of neighbouring properties. The Council’s conservation officer was also consulted, and it was decided the development would not harm the character of the host dwelling, the wider terrace or the conservation area.
Mrs X says the case officer failed to visit the site before planning permission was granted. However, council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding 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. I am satisfied the Council has explained how it was able to assess the application without visiting the site.
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 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.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman