Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for developments near the complainant’s home or a breach of planning control. 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. He has also complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
4. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application to build a detached dwelling near his home. Mr X says the application should have been determined by the Council’s planning committee. He says applications are usually referred to the planning committee if more than five objections are received and in this case six people objected to the development. However, the Council was entitled to decide the objections were not significant enough to refer the application 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.
7. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with another application to build two dwellings at the same site. This application was referred to the Council’s planning committee and members voted to grant planning permission.
8. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with the planning application. He says the Council relied on planning permission previously granted for the site. However, Mr X says the previous planning decision was flawed. Mr X also says the planning decision was not in line with planning policy, the new dwellings are too close to his property and the Council did not address the impact on neighbouring properties.
9. 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.
10. In this case, I am satisfied the Council considered the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The previous application for the site was 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.
11. The Council was entitled to use its 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.
12. Mr X has also complained the new dwellings are being built closer to the boundary than they should be. An officer from the Council visited the site and agreed the development was not being built in line with the approved plans. However, the enforcement officer decided the difference was minimal and it would not be expedient to take formal action.
13. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council does not need to take formal action just because there has been a planning breach. It is for the Council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. As the Council properly considered if formal enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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