Wokingham Borough Council (23 018 179)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Mar 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about errors in the planning process for development in a garden which borders the complainant’s property. The Council has apologised for the errors in the planning officer’s report. I consider this an appropriate remedy to the complaint.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the errors in the planning officer’s report on her neighbour’s planning application led to a misinformed decision to grant planning permission.
  2. She also complains the Council failed to consider her objections to the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council has accepted fault in stating in the planning officer’s report on the neighbour’s application that Ms X had withdrawn her objections when she had not. It also accepts its description of the fencing position relating to Ms X’s summerhouse contained a minor error.
  2. However, the Council confirms the planning officer visited the site and was aware of the position of Ms X’s summer house. I am satisfied the report shows the Council considered Ms X’s residential amenity. The Council also confirmed officers returned to the site following his complaint and confirmed the location of the solar panels is acceptable. It says the recessed fence line gives a wider separation between the panels and Ms X’s boundary and summer house.
  3. Ms X’s concerns about fire risk or possible asbestos contamination are not material planning considerations, these are matters for building control.
  4. The Council has apologised to Ms X for stating she had withdrawn her objections and for the minor error when describing the relationship between the boundary and his summer house. I consider this is a satisfactory remedy given Ms X’s amenity was considered before granting planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The Council has apologised for the errors in the planning officer’s report, which we consider is a satisfactory remedy for the error.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings