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. She says the decision to grant planning permission was based on incorrect information from the applicant and the development will have 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms 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 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 the proposal would not cause significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of light, overshadowing or loss of privacy.
Ms X says the Council’s decision was based on inaccurate information. The applicant’s agent responded to the objections Ms X raised about the development. Ms X says the comments were untrue and the Council should have let her respond. However, the Council did not need to give Ms X further opportunity to comment on the application or facilitate a debate between the parties involved.
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.
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