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 decision to grant planning permission was not in line with the Council’s policy and the Council failed to properly assess the application and consult with residents. Mr X says the development will affect his standard of living and compromise his privacy. Mr X also says the development has not been built in line with the approved plans.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not adversely impact neighbouring amenity to such an extent to warrant refusal of the application.
7. Mr X says the Council should have visited the neighbouring properties to fully assess the application. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before granting planning permission and the impact of the development can often be assessed from the application site.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was 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.
9. Mr X has also complained the development is not being built in line with the approved plans.
10. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. Council’s do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control and it is for the council to decide if it is expedient to take further action.
11. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns. An enforcement officer visited the site and took measurements before deciding the height, width and depth of the new dwelling was in line with the approved plans. The Council did find discrepancies regarding some of the windows and roof lights installed. However, the developer has now made an application to amend the approved plans and regularise the situation. It is not unusual for a council to invite a retrospective application to regularise a development and government guidance says councils should act proportionately when considering enforcement action.
12. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about possible breaches of planning control it is unlikely I could find fault.
13. Mr X has also complained about how the Council has handled his complaint and says it failed to properly communicate with him. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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