Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and an application for listed building consent. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and an application for listed building consent for a development near his home. Mr X says the applications contained incorrect details and the Council granted planning permission without visiting the site. Mr X says the development causes a significant loss of privacy to his home.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Council.
4. I 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 be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
6. 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.
7. In this case, 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 the impact the new window would have on Mr X’s home. However, the officer decided there would be no harm to neighbouring amenity subject to a condition requiring the window to be obscurely glazed.
8. Mr X says the planning application included incorrect address details and the description for the development did not refer to the new window facing his property. Mr X says he did not comment on the application due to the address error and believes the application is invalid.
9. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council did still consider the acceptability of the development, including the proposed window, before granting planning permission. Therefore, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X objected to the application or if the description included details of the proposed window.
10. Mr X also says the Council did not visit the site before granting planning permission. However, council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools.
11. Mr X says the Council is granting his neighbour a right to light by giving permission for a new window in a room where one had not previously existed. Mr X says the Council has no authority to grant a right of light. However, right to light is a civil matter and not a planning consideration. The Council only needed to consider if the new window was acceptable in planning terms before granting permission.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman