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 any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the planning application.

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 properly consider his objections or the impact the development will have on his home. He also says the Council did not publicise the application as it should have.

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 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 harm the amenity of Mr X’s property by overshadowing, overlooking or an overbearing impact.
7. Mr X says the case officer did not visit his home to properly assess the impact of the development. He also says his home will lose value. But councils are not required to visit neighbouring properties before granting planning permission and officers can usually assess the acceptability of the proposal from the application site. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X says the Council did not properly publicise the application. However, even if I were to find fault in this regard, I do not consider that Mr X would have suffered any significant injustice as he did know about the application and objected to the proposal.

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 not suffered any significant injustice as a result of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman