Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application. He says the decision to grant permission was not in line with its policy and his home is now significantly overlooked.

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 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.

What happened

5. The Council received a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour to extend their property. The Council consulted the affected residents and Mr X objected to the proposal raising concerns about overlooking and the impact on his privacy. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions.
6. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with the application. He says the development is not in line with its policy and the case officer failed to visit his home to assess the impact. Mr X says the Council should compensate him for his loss of privacy and the cost of screening to protect his home and garden from overlooking.

Assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.
8. I am satisfied the case officer considered the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The report referred to the concerns raised by Mr X, but the officer decided there was an adequate separation distance between Mr X’s home and the development site and there would not be a loss of privacy. Mr X disagrees and says the new balcony allows views directly into his living space and the application should have been refused because of the harmful impact on his privacy. Mr X also says the case officer should have assessed the impact of the proposal from his property. But the case officer considered the impact of the balcony and there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties if the impact of the development can be established from the application site.
9. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. 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

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman