Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to convert a former commercial building to a residential block. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council approved a planning application to convert a commercial building close to his home into a residential block of flats.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his request for contact from the Planning Officer and local Councillor. He has since discovered the Council granted planning permission a year ago.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaint
• Information available on the Council’s website including the Planning Officer’s report
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application. I have seen no evidence to show this did not happen in this case.
6. When planning authorities receive planning applications, they must consider relevant planning matters in reaching a decision. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifies a range of relevant planning matters. Among these are the possible effects on the amenity of neighbours. This can be in terms of size, scale, light pollution, odour, loss of privacy and others. While the planning authority must consider all those that are relevant, it has discretion about what weight to give to them. Our role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters, not to reach our own view where there is no fault.
7. Separation measurements are taken from the principal elevations of the buildings concerned. In this case the Council was aware the application site is 37 metres from the rear wall of Mr X’s home (not his garden boundary). Mr X’s objections are summarised in the Planning Officer’s report. The Officer considered this was a reasonable separation distance and there will be no unacceptable overlooking of Mr X’s home. This is a professional judgement, and having followed the correct planning process, there is no evidence of fault.
8. There is two years from the Council receiving the application to deciding to grant planning permission. Depending on the scale of the proposal, planning applications should be decided within eight weeks for a household or minor application and thirteen weeks for a large or controversial application. However, the Council can ask the applicant for an extension to the deadline. If the applicant does not agree to an extension of time, they can appeal to the Planning Inspector on the grounds of non-determination. There is no third party right of appeal. Nor do I consider that Mr X has suffered significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delay in approving the application. Also, the Council is not required to notify objectors when it issues decisions on planning applications.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman