Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for extensions to Mr X’s neighbour’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for an extension to an neighbouring property without considering the impact on his home. Mr X says that the Council should have carried out a daylight and sunlight assessment.
2. Mr X says he wants the Council to visit his property to understand his concerns and reconsider the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and information about the application on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for Mr X’s neighbouring extension. The Council produced a case officer report which considered the impact of the extension on his property. This includes recognition that part of the proposed extension was 0.5 metres beyond what is allowed under permitted development. However the Council did not feel this would make a significant different to the impact on Mr X’s home. That is a decision the Council is entitled to take.
8. Mr X is unhappy that the Council did not visit his property to understand the impact the extensions would have. The Council is not required to visit development sites. In most cases officers and members of planning committees will be able to assess any potential impacts by considering submitted plans and any pre existing knowledge o the area. Therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault and we will not investigate this complaint.
9. Mr X says he has a recording of the Planning Committee meeting where the application was considered. Comments made by members of a Planning Committee cannot be taken as reasons for granting or refusing planning permission. In R v Bromley Borough Council and another (2009) EWCA Civ 734, the judge said:

“It is wholly wrong, in my judgment, to categorise what a councillor may say in the course of the ebb and flow of a debate such as takes place in advance of a vote upon a planning proposal as being the reason or reasons for his or her decision. The whole point about collective decision making is that the members of the decision making body collectively agree on what is to happen and why it is to happen. What each may say during the course of debate in advance of a decision cannot be regarded as collective even if, which I doubt, it is anything other than a possible guide to the reasons motivating that person.”

10. Therefore we are unlikely to find fault with the way the decision was taken based on any isolated comments made by members of the Planning Committee during the consideration of the applicant.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman