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 complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to fully consider the impact of his neighbour’s planning application before granting planning permission.

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.

(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 planning authorities receive planning applications, they must consider relevant planning matters in reaching a decision. These may be obvious or be raised by members of the public who comment on the applications. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifies a range of relevant planning matters. Among these are the possible effects on the amenity of neighbours. This can be in terms of size, scale, light pollution, odour, loss of privacy and others. While the planning authority must consider all those that are relevant, it has discretion about what weight to give to them.
6. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider evidence of procedural fault in how the Council came to its decision; we do not consider planning appeals. We cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
7. The Council received an application from Mr X’s neighbour to build an extension and erect a boundary wall to enclose his land to the side of his home.
8. The Council publicised the application which met the statutory publicity requirement for this application.
9. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
10. The Planning Officer visited the site and prepared a report on the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr X. The report details the relevant national and local planning policy. It notes:
• The impact of the proposal on the character of the area.
• The impact of the proposal on Mr X’s property.
• The visibility line from Mr X’s vehicular access; and
• The fact that permitted development rights to erect boundary treatments up to one metre have not been removed from properties in the immediate area.
11. The Officer concluded:
• The proposal would cause some sense of enclosure but it would be difficult to recommend refusal for this and for the refusal to be sustained at appeal.
• There would be no significant loss of light to Mr X’s home.
• The proposal will not have a significant impact on Mr X’s amenity.
• The proposal will not impact on the visibility for Mr X’s vehicle access.
12. The Planning Officer recommended the application for approval. A senior officer agreed and the Council granted planning permission according to its scheme of delegation.
13. I understand Mr X disagrees with the weight given to the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and on his property. He commissioned a report from a planning professional which supports this view. However, as advised above, it is for the decision makers to decide the weight given to material considerations.
14. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mr X’s home, the character of the area and the impact on highway visibility, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the objections received and explains why the Planning Officer considers the proposal overcomes these.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman