Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information. Mr X says the development is too high and close to his property and will have a significant impact on his home.

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 development would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of its bulk, scale, overshadowing, loss of light, loss of outlook or privacy.
8. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate location plans submitted with the application. However, the plans were amended after Mr X raised his concerns. The Council has accepted there was a delay before the plans were changed. But I cannot say Mr X suffered any significant injustice as a result. The plans were amended before the application was determined. Mr X’s concerns about the plans were also referenced in the case officer’s report and it is clear from the report the officer was aware of the correct site location and relationship between the properties.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had there not been an error in the plans or a delay amending these.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman