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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the plans for the proposal were amended without his knowledge 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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. 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.
7. 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 have an unacceptable impact on Mr X’s home.
8. Mr X says the plans were changed without his knowledge and an additional window was added to the development. The Council says it did consult residents about the amendments and Mr X commented. Mr X disputes this. However, even if Mr X was not told about the additional window, I do not consider he suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council still properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting permission. Therefore, the planning decision would likely be the same had Mr X raised further objections.
9. The Council also granted two non-material amendment applications to change the approved plans. Councils are not required to consult residents when a non-material amendment application is received. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the changes before deciding the proposals were acceptable.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council consulted residents about the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman