Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for developments 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 dealt with two planning applications for developments near his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications. This is because it is unlikely I will find fault by the Council.
7. The Council received an application to build a detached dwelling on land near Mr X’s home. It considered the application and granted planning permission. Mr X says the proposal was inappropriately determined by officers using their delegated authority instead of being referred to the planning committee. However, the Council was entitled to decide the objections received were not significant enough to refer the case to the committee. Furthermore, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice in this regard as the case officer’s report shows the impact on residential amenity was still properly considered before planning permission was granted. The planning permission has also never been implemented.
8. Another application was made to build two new houses at the same site. This application was referred to the planning committee for determination and permission granted. Mr X says the Council wrongly used the previously approved development as grounds to grant the second application. He says the new dwellings will have a significant impact on his amenity and do not comply with the Council’s policy. Mr X also says the Council failed to consider the Right to Light Act.
9. I am satisfied the case officer considered the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The previous application for the site would have been a material planning consideration. The case officer and committee members also visited the site and decided there would not be harm to the privacy of neighbouring residents or unacceptable overshadowing or overlooking. I understand Mr X disagrees and says the Council has not considered the Right to Light Act, but right to light is not a material planning matter.
10. 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

11. 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