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 the 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 proposal would not create any overlooking issues and any loss of light would not be significant enough to warrant the refusal of the application.
8. Mr X says the development will affect the party wall and he has incurred costs as he needed to pay for a surveyor. But issues relating to party wall agreements are not material planning considerations and will instead be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
9. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application. But even if I did consider the Council at fault in this regard, I could not say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. Mr X was still aware of the application and able to raise his objections before planning permission was granted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman