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 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. He says the Council failed to properly engage with him and the plans submitted with the application were unclear. Mr X says the Council has not assessed the application in line with its policies and the development will cause a significant loss of light to 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), as amended, section 34(B))

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 impact on neighbouring properties would not be unacceptable or significant enough to warrant the refusal of the application.
7. Mr X disagrees and says the development does not comply with the 45 degree light test and therefore a further light assessment should have been carried out. The case officer acknowledged in their report that the development would not satisfy the 45 degree rule. However, this does not automatically mean the application should be refused and the case officer explained why the proposal would still be acceptable. The Council also explained further why it did not consider an additional light assessment was necessary in response to Mr X’s complaint.
8. Mr X says the Council failed to properly engage with him during the application process. He also says the plans for the development were unclear and therefore he was not aware of the full extent of the proposed extension. However, there was no requirement for the Council to consult Mr X further after it received his objections. It was also entitled to decide it had sufficient information to validate the application. Furthermore, even if I were to find fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as the Council did still properly consider the acceptability of the development before granting permission. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had the Council contacted Mr X to discuss his concerns or if the plans for the extension had been more detailed.
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 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman