Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application 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, also complains for his neighbour Mrs Y. He says the Council failed to consider the impact that a new office building will have on his neighbourhood and his right to privacy.

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 that there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• information provided by the complainant including the Council’s response.
• information contained on the planning pages of the Council’s website including the planning officer’s report
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 given to any material considerations in deciding a planning application.
6. I 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 I am unlikely to find fault.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we must consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the impact on Mr X & Mrs Y’s homes before granting planning permission. The case officer addressed the impact on neighbouring amenity in their report before deciding there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact. The case officer stated the two-storey element of the new building will be 10 metres from the boundary and 32 metres from Mr X and Mrs Y’s homes. This is 12 metres more than the minimum separation distance required by Council policy.
9. The Officer considers that light emanating from the building in the early evening will not create adverse impact on residential amenity.
10. Mr X is concerned about the potential for flooding in his garden. However, the Planning Officer confirmed the site is within flood zone 1. The proposal is to replace an existing building and is classed as minor development. There is no flood risk from the proposal.
11. I understand Mr X and Mrs Y disagree with the Council’s view, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard. We cannot question this 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

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman