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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says planning permission was based on incorrect information and the Council failed to properly consider his objections and the impact the development would have on his property. Mr X says the extension will have a significant impact on his light and amenity.
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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr 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 Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not cause adverse harm to the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing effect.
Mr X says the case officer did not properly assess the impact of the extension from his perspective and says the measurements referred to by the Council were wrong. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before determining a planning application. In this case, the officer did carry out a brief visit to Mr X’s home. The officer’s report also addressed Mr X’s concerns about the measurements for the development and explained how they were able to assess the relationship between the properties.
I understand Mr 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.
Mr X has also raised concerns about how the Council publicised the application and says he was not initially notified about the development. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result as he was still aware of the application and able to object to the proposal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman