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. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to consult him about the application and his neighbour was given assurances that permission would be granted before they made the application. Mr X says the matter has affected his wellbeing and the new development will have a significant impact on his property.

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 Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers would not be impacted by the proposal.
8. Mr X disagrees and says the case officer should have visited his home to fully assess the application. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before determining an application and the impact can often be assessed from the development site.
9. Mr X has also raised concerns about the boundary fence which will be removed to allow for the development. However, it is not for the Council to get involved in issues relating to the party wall as this will be a matter for Mr X and his neighbour.
10. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s consultation letter and the site notice was erected in an inappropriate location. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has been caused significant injustice as a result.
11. Once the Council became aware Mr X had not received its letter it re-sent this and extended the deadline to comment on the proposal. Mr X was therefore able to raise his objections before planning permission was granted.

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