Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a possible 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 a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the materials used for the new extension will not be in keeping with the area and will impact visual amenity. Mr X also says the wrong windows have been used for the development.

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 the decision was made.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, before granting planning permission. The permission was also subject to a condition requiring the applicant to submit details of the proposed render to the Council for approval.
9. The Council has since discharged this condition as it was satisfied the render was appropriate in terms of its colour and finish and would respect the character of the area.
10. Mr X disagrees and says no other properties in the area have used render. However, the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the materials for the development were acceptable and 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.
11. Mr X has also complained the wrong windows have been used for the development. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns but decided the extension windows were in line with the approved plans. It also explained why it did not consider it expedient to take enforcement action in relation to a window fitted in the main house. I understand Mr X may disagree, but it is for the Council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if enforcement action is necessary. Councils also do not have to take formal action just because there has been a planning breach. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, 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