Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning applications. Mr X says the Council has not properly explained its reasons for granting planning permission and the development will have a significant impact on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before approving the planning applications. The case officer’s reports referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on the area and neighbouring properties.
7. Mr X says the Council previously refused permission for a similar development at the site. He also says the Council has not properly explained its reasons for approving the applications or provided further details to show how the development complies with the 45-degree rule.
8. However, the case officer’s reports set out the material considerations and the officer explained why the proposals were acceptable in planning terms. The reports do not need to include every matter considered or detailed explanations or calculations. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has also explained how the developer overcame the reasons for refusing an earlier application for the site.
9. The Council has accepted the case officer’s report referred to a dormer window in error. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice because of this mistake as the Council has explained why this does not impact the planning decision.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposals were acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of an error in the case officer’s report.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman