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. It is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice in relation to how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control.

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 residential development. Mr X says a parking space within the development has been inappropriately located and when the space is occupied it blocks light to his kitchen.
2. Mr X also complains a streetlight has been built in the wrong location and is causing excessive light pollution.

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
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the site layout, including the location of parking spaces, before approving the application. The Council further addressed the impact the visitor parking space has on Mr X’s home in response to his complaint. It said Mr X’s kitchen area would receive an acceptable level of outlook and light and any impact from the use of the parking space would be intermittent.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X has also complained a streetlight has been built in the wrong location. The Council has accepted the streetlight has not been built in line with the approved plans. It says it is working with the developer to resolve the issue and will consider enforcement action if necessary. As the Council’s investigation regarding the unauthorised placement of the streetlight is ongoing, it is not yet possible to say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault in this regard. The Council may decide the current location of the light is acceptable or it may decide to take formal enforcement action. However, Mr X can return to the Ombudsman once the Council’s investigation has concluded should he remain unhappy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application because we are unlikely to find fault. It is not yet possible to determine if Mr X has suffered significant injustice in relation to how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman