Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed the complainant’s neighbour’s planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its’ accepting the ownership certificates. The alleged faults in the Planning Officers’ report are relatively minor and we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result. The report does not mislead the Council and does show the Council considered the impact of the proposal on the complainant’s home and the street scene.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains:
• the Council failed to follow the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by allowing his neighbours’ development to proceed despite incorrect details of ownership entered on the application form
• the Planning Officers report on his neighbours planning proposal contained errors
• there is breach of copyright as the neighbour’s architect used details from Mr X’s previous planning applications for extensions to his own 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), as amended, section 34(B))

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. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with a council’s development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6. When considering planning applications councils can only take account of material considerations. These relate to the use and development of land in the public interest. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Councils cannot take account of private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, land rights or reduction in the value of a property.
7. Mr X says the incorrect ownership certificate on the planning application form was completed and therefore should not have been validated or processed.
8. The responsibility for correctly completing the ownership certificate on a planning application form lays with the applicant. It is not the responsibility of the Council to determine land ownership. Only the courts can decide this. In any event development can be built on land not owned by the applicant. It is not the responsibility of the Council to check land ownership. The Council has confirmed it has not received any information from anyone purporting to be the rightful owners of the property. Nor does the proposed development encroach on land outside the development site.
9. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as I cannot see that any fault by the Council would have caused Mr X an injustice. Even if the Council had found the application to be invalid it is likely his neighbour would have resubmitted a new application with the corrected certificate.
10. The Planning Officer’s report includes the relevant information, and the Council confirms the Planning Officer visited the site.
11. Councils will not refuse planning permission for a development just because it will overshadow a neighbouring property. The Council must consider whether overshadowing caused will be unacceptable.
12. The report notes a previous application had been refused because of a proposal for dormer windows to the first floor which would have had an adverse impact on Mr X’s privacy. The report notes the dormer windows and a Juliet balcony are removed from the new application.
13. The report includes a summary of Mr X’s objections to the proposal. This includes the impact on light received to the southern elevation of his home. The Officer acknowledges there will be a loss of light. However, as there are other windows serving Mr X’s affected ground floor rooms the proposal does not cause unreasonable harm to Mr X’s amenity.
14. Mr X says the report states the wrong number of windows which he says will overlook his property. And there are inaccurate statements about the roof profile. However, the Planning Officer visited the site and the report shows the Council was aware of the position of the property in relation to Mr X’s home. The report also shows the Council had considered the impact of the proposed extension on both Mr X’s property and the street scene. They considered the application overcame the reasons for refusal of the previous application and decided to approve the application. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make as I do not consider the overall effect of the report significantly misleads the Council.
15. Finally, Mr X complain the neighbour’s architect used details from his previous planning applications for extensions to his own property, and the Council relied on this information.
16. Planning Officers will consider information gained from site visits, plans and other information available which may be available online when assessing applications. It advised Mr X it had referred his claim of unauthorised use of his plans for investigation by its website managers. I expect the Council to advise Mr X of the outcome of this investigation. I consider any claim of breach of copyright by the neighbour’s architect is a civil matter between Mr X and the neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s acceptance of the ownership certificates.
• The Planning Officer’s report shows the Council was aware of the location of the proposed extension in relation to Mr X’s property. The Officer considered the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s home and the street scene. Any errors in the report are relatively minor and do not mislead the Council.
• The Council has advised a separate investigate will take place into Mr X’s allegation of breach of copyright.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman