Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has also not suffered 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 for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact the development would have on his property and the new dwelling will cause a significant loss of privacy and loss of light to his home and solar panels. Mr X also says the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

0. there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
1. any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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 Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposed dwelling would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.
8. Mr X says the development will impact the efficiency of his solar panels. The case officer considered the impact on Mr X’s solar panels in their report. However, the officer decided that due to the position of the application site, the distance between the properties and the proposed roof height, the development would not cause a significant loss of light to the panels installed.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees and says the Council should provide evidence to support this. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment 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.
10. Mr X has also complained the application was not referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
11. Mr X says he contacted a local councillor who intended to call the application in for the committee to decide. However, Mr X says the Council did not notify the councillor when the application was being considered as requested. Even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result. We can never know if the committee would have granted or refused the application. But as the case officer properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it more likely than not the planning decision would be the same had the application been referred to the planning committee for determination.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman