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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says his objections were not properly considered and the development will have a significant impact on his home.

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. Mr X’s neighbour applied to the Council for permission to extend their home. Mr X objected to the proposal and raised concerns about the impact on his property. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission.
6. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with the application. He says the Council failed to consider his objections and refused to visit his property to assess the impact the proposal would have. Mr X says the new extension will cause a loss of light and significantly impact his outlook.

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. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how a decision was made.
9. In this case, I am satisfied the case officer properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on Mr X’s home but decided the proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on light and said there would not be a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents.
10. Mr X says the case officer should have visited the site to properly assess the impact on his home. But there is no duty on the Council to visit a site when assessing a proposal and the Council has explained why it considers it had enough information to determine the application.
11. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But 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 before granting planning permission it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We 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