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 did not properly consider the application and based its decision to grant permission on misleading and inaccurate information.

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)

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. 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

5. In 2019, the Council received a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour to build a three storey extension. Mr X objected to the proposal and raised concerns about the impact on his home and the surrounding area. He also said there would not be adequate parking for the development and argued the applicant had wrongly claimed they owned the boundary wall.
6. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination and members voted to grant permission subject to conditions.
7. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. He says the decision was based on inaccurate and misleading information in the case officer’s report. He also says the Council did not properly consider the objections raised about the proposal before granting permission.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission as it is unlikely I would find fault.
9. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his objections or the comments from the highway authority before granting permission. However, I am satisfied Mr X’s concerns were detailed in the report and the case officer addressed the impact on residential amenity and the surrounding area. The report also referred to Mr X’s objections in relation to the ownership of the boundary wall. However, the case officer concluded the proposal was acceptable. The material issues were also discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to approve the application.
10. The highway authority did raise concerns about parking provision for the development. These comments were received after the case officer had completed their report but were provided to the planning committee before the meeting. The concerns raised were discussed during the meeting and the case officer explained why additional parking provision was not necessary. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council’s officers were entitled to use their professional judgment and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was flawed. As the Council properly considered the application before granting permission it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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