The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says the Council did not consult her about the application and its decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information. Ms X says the development does not comply with planning guidance and has a significant impact on her property. Ms X also says the development has not been built in line with the approved plans.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms 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.
Ms X says she was not notified about the application. The Council says it wrote to residents, including Ms X, to tell them about the proposal. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring residents. However, the officer decided the development would not significantly impact neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light and privacy or overlooking. The Council also explained further in response to Ms X’s complaint why there would not be an unacceptable impact on Ms X’s privacy.
Ms X says the planning decision was based on inaccurate plans which misrepresented the location of her home. But the Council has explained why it was satisfied with the information it received with the application.
I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. Therefore, I consider it likely the planning decision would be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected.
Ms X says the development has not been built in line with the approved plans. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
The Council looked into Ms X’s concerns and agreed the dormer window was slightly bigger than it should be. But it said the difference was not material and would not be significant enough to warrant enforcement action. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach, and the Council was entitled to decide further action was not necessary.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Ms X has not suffered significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman