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 and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. He says the Council failed to notify him about the application and has not properly considered the impact on his home. Mr X says this led to a disagreement with his neighbour regarding a Party Wall Act agreement.

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 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 and have considered his comments in response.

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.
5. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website. In addition, the Council must;

• erect a site notice and put a publication in a local newspaper if the proposal departs from the development plan or affects a public right of way;
• erect a site notice or notify neighbours and place a publication in a local newspaper if the application is for a major development;
• erect a site notice or notify neighbours if the development is minor.

What happened

6. In 2017, the Council received an application from Mr X’s neighbours to extend their property. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions. In 2020, Mr X was contacted by his neighbour’s builder to discuss a Party Wall Act agreement. Mr X says he was told that part of his property would need to be demolished and scaffolding erected to allow for the construction of the extension. Mr X contacted the Council as he had not been aware that planning permission had been granted. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact on his home and wrongly believed his neighbour owned all the land where works would need to take place. Mr X says he has been caused considerable stress by the matter.

Assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
8. For minor developments the Council is required to either erect a site notice or notify the affected residents. In this case, the Council put up two notices at the application site. I understand Mr X did not see the notices and says the Council should have written to him to tell him about the application. But as the Council publicised the application in line with the statutory requirements it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Furthermore, even if I could say the Council should have written to Mr X, I could not say he has been caused any significant injustice by the matter as the Council did still consider the impact on his home before deciding the proposal was acceptable. Therefore, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had Mr X objected. Mr X disagrees and says the plans submitted with the application wrongly gave the impression the existing property was detached. But the case officer did visit the site as part of the pre-application assessment and so was aware of the relationship between the properties before granting planning permission. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was flawed.
10. I understand Mr X’s dispute with his neighbour about the party wall agreement has now been resolved. However, he is still concerned about the impact on his home while the development is being built. Mr X has also raised concerns about potential damage to his property. But disruption caused during construction is not a material planning consideration and complaints about property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour. The Ombudsman would not usually investigate complaints about damage to a person’s property because of a planning application.

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 and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman