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 for a development near his home. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on a flawed process and not in line with the Council’s guidance. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his home and garden.

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. (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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

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 a decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area but decided there would not be a detrimental impact. The report said there would be a sufficient separation distance between Mr X’s home and the proposed new balcony. The case officer said additional screening would also be provided by an existing hedge.
9. Mr X disagrees and says his property will be overlooked. He also says the existing hedge is too low to prevent overlooking from the new balcony. However, 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 flawed.
10. Mr X says the case officer could not have properly assessed the impact of the development as they did not visit the site before granting planning permission. However, there is no requirement for councils to carry out a site visit and the Council has explained in its complaint responses how it was able to assess the application without visiting the development site.
11. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman