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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. He says the Council did not properly publicise the application and the development has a significant impact on his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development although in all cases the application must be published on the council’s website. For minor developments the council must also either erect a site notice or notify the residents of the neighboring properties.
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.

What happened

6. The Council received a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. The applicant sought permission to raise their roof height and add an additional floor to their property. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions.
7. Mr X contacted the Council after works started to build the development. He said he was not notified about the application and did not know planning permission had been granted. Mr X says the development overlooks his garden and has a significant impact on his amenity.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because I am unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.
9. I am satisfied the case officer considered the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring properties and acknowledged the development would have an impact on amenity. However, the officer decided the impact would not be significantly harmful. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X says he was not notified about the development and therefore lost the opportunity to comment. The Council says it did write to neighbouring residents and placed a notice in a local paper. I cannot know why Mr X did not receive the Council’s letter. But even if it could be shown the Council did not send this as Mr X believes, I cannot say he has suffered any significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council did still properly consider the impact on residential amenity. Therefore, the decision to grant planning permission would likely be the same had Mr X had the opportunity to object.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman