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 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 a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate and misleading information and the development will have a significant impact on his property.

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))

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the application before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties. The case officer acknowledged the extension would cause some overshadowing to Mr X’s home but decided this would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. The acceptability of the application was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
9. Mr X disagrees and says committee members were misled by the case officer in relation to parking and the officer’s visits to the site. However, Mr X’s concerns about the development, including the issues he raised in relation to the parking arrangements for the development, were detailed in the case officer’s report. Mr X also spoke at the meeting and therefore members were aware of his concerns before granting planning permission. There is also no obligation for planning officers and committee members to carry out a site visit before deciding a planning application. In this case, officers did visit the site to assess the proposal and members could have deferred the application for determination at a later date so they could visit the site had they felt it necessary.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the planning application it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. The Council has accepted there was a mistake in the case officer’s report as it incorrectly said Mr X’s extension had a glazed roof. However, it is unlikely this error affected the planning decision as the Council did still consider the impact on neighbouring properties before granting planning permission.
12. Mr X has also complained that a second application for a slightly smaller extension was not referred to the Council’s planning committee. Most planning applications will be determined by officers using their delegated authority. The Council’s policy says applications for major schemes or controversial applications will be referred to the committee for determination. Mr X says many people objected to the second application and therefore it should have been decided by the planning committee. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault for not referring the application to the committee, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as the case officer did still properly consider the acceptability of the development.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman