Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. It is also unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

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 applications. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his objections and the development will cause significant overlooking and loss of privacy.
2. Mr X has also complained the Council failed to communicate with him and took too long to respond to his complaint.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and 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 developments, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s reports for both applications referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposals would not result in overlooking or loss of privacy to Mr X’s home.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions to grant planning permission for the developments. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the applications were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question these decisions unless they were tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained about how the Council communicated with him and how it dealt with his complaint. The Council has apologised and offered Mr X £200 to recognise his time and trouble. I consider this a suitable remedy in the circumstances, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman