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 as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Dr B, has complained about how the Council dealt with their neighbour’s planning application. Dr B says the Council failed to consult neighbouring residents about changes to the plans and they therefore did not have the opportunity to comment on the amended proposal. Dr B says the development will have a significant impact on their 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 Dr B 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, the Council received a planning application from Dr B’s neighbour. It consulted the owners of the neighbouring properties, and a site notice was erected. Following this, the plans were amended. The footprint of the development changed, and the location of the proposed building was moved closer to Dr B’s property. Dr B has complained the Council failed to consult neighbours about the changes to the plans. However, it was for the Council to decide if further consultation was necessary, and it has explained why it did not consider this was needed.
6. Furthermore, even if I were to find fault with how the Council consulted residents, I do not consider Dr B has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the amended development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report considered the impact on Dr B’s home. However, the officer decided the development would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and would not cause significant overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light or appear overbearing.
8. Dr B says the development will impact the view from their property. But loss of views is not a material planning consideration.
9. I understand Dr B disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Dr B had the opportunity to object to the amended proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because Dr B has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman