Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to his neighbour to extend their property. Mr X says the Council has not properly considered the application and based its decision on inaccurate and untrue information from the applicant. Mr X says the extension will significantly overlook his home and believes the Council should compensate him for the amount he has had to pay for screening to protect his privacy.

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.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

Planning applications

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. In 2019, Mr X’s neighbour applied to the Council for planning permission to alter the window arrangements for their property and build a single storey front extension. Mr X objected to the proposal and raised concerns about the impact on protected trees at the site. He also said the development would cause light pollution and have a significant impact on his privacy. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions.
7. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. He says he has incurred substantial costs for screening to protect his privacy. Mr X also argues that the applicant provided untrue information to the Council and says the plans submitted with the application do not properly show the location of the protected tree at the site. Mr X believes the application should have been considered by the Council’s planning committee.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission as it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
9. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his home. However, the case officer did address the impact on residential amenity in their report before deciding the development would maintain an acceptable level of privacy to neighbouring properties. The report said the new windows proposed for the host dwelling would not materially alter the external appearance of the house and therefore could be changed without planning permission. The report also said the window proposed for the south west elevation of the extension would have a similar outlook to the new window of the host dwelling, which could be inserted without permission. The case officer decided that any additional overlooking and loss of privacy from the new bathroom window could be addressed by a planning condition to ensure the window is obscurely glazed.
10. The case officer addressed Mr X’s concerns about the protected tree at the site and consulted the Council’s tree officer before deciding it would not be affected by the development. Mr X says the plans submitted with the application do not accurately show the location of the tree, but the case officer and tree officer visited the site so would have been aware of the correct location.
11. As the Council properly considered the impact on neighbouring properties before granting planning permission it is unlikely I would find fault. I understand Mr X disagrees and says the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. But the Council will delegate most planning decisions to its officers and its decision not to refer this application to the committee is in line with its constitution. Therefore, it is unlikely I could say it is at fault in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman