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

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 assess the proposal before granting planning permission. He says the development will be overbearing and cause overshadowing and loss of light. Mr X is also concerned the development may affect the stability of 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 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. 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 cause unacceptable levels of overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of light to neighbouring properties. The officer also decided the development would not be unduly imposing or overbearing. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard.
6. Mr X says he asked the Council to visit his home so it could fully assess the impact the development would have on his property. He also says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission contradicted its decision to refuse the original application for the site. However, the Council has explained how the second application was significantly different to the first application. There was also no requirement for the Council to visit the neighbouring properties before it granted planning permission.
7. Mr X says the Council failed to consider the potential risk to his home due to the presence of unrecorded coal mines in the area. The Council has accepted there was an error in this regard and the matter was not correctly covered in the case officer’s report. However, I do not consider this error caused Mr X any significant injustice. I am satisfied the Council still properly considered the issues raised about possible coal mines at the site. It consulted the Coal Authority and imposed a planning condition to reflect its comments. Therefore, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had there not been an error in the case officer’s report.
8. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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