Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for works at a property next to the complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly handle and consider planning applications for works to a neighbouring property. In particular, Mr X says the Council:
• Did not ensure all objections were registered and displayed on its planning portal, yet supporting comments appeared even after the deadline for submission
• The planning officer failed to reply to any of his emails, letters or phone calls
• Ignored his requests to limit the length of the extension in accordance with the thresholds stipulated under permitted development rights
• Should not have allowed the applicant to submit non-material amendment applications to reverse amendments which had been negotiated during the original application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant might disagree with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If there is evidence of fault in the process, we consider whether this is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4.  

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including, its complaint responses and copies of the notification letters sent to residents.
6. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning applications on the Council’s planning portal.

Back to top

Summary of what happened

7. Mr X’s neighhbour submitted a planning application. During the determination of the application,the Council requested amendments

Back to top

My assessment

8. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The notification letters sent to Mr X do state, “Please note that due to the large number of comments we receive we are unable to acknowledge or respond to individual queries”.
• The volume of local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission. The Council must determine an application in accordance with its planning policies, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as Party Wall matters.
• Permitted development rights do not impose a maximum limit on the size of extensions that can be built. Rather, they impose limits on what can be built without having to apply for planning permission.
• Mr X’s objections appear to be on the planning portal and are referred to in the case officer’s report. The report considers the key material planning considerations, and explains that amendments (reducing the depth of the first floor extension, and the eaves height of the ground floor extension) were sought to address Mr X’s concerns.
• The subsequent non-material amendment applications sought different alterations, which increased the height of a parapet wall at attic level, and an increased the width of the ground/first floor extensions by approximately so that

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate @’s complaint because @

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman