Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. He says his concerns about the application were not properly considered and the development will cause parking issues.
2. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. He says a planning condition has been breached and his neighbour carried out work to their property without permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. The case officer also said the development would not create demand for additional parking or result in the loss of existing parking spaces.
9. Mr X says the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. Councils delegate most planning decisions to officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s scheme of delegation. In this case, the application did not meet the requirements for referral to the Council’s planning committee.
10. 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.
11. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. Mr X says his neighbour converted their garage into a bedroom without permission. He also says a planning condition relating to his neighbour’s property has not been complied with.
12. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission or not complied with planning conditions. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action.
13. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and said it had no grounds to take any action in relation to the conversion of the garage as planning permission was not needed for the changes. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. As it properly considered if enforcement action was necessary it is unlikely I would find fault.
14. The Council has also looked into Mr X’s concerns about a planning condition being breached. It has told Mr X it needs more evidence to determine if there has been a breach. It has invited Mr X to provide this, but it has not yet received any information. If Mr X remains concerned about the possible breach, he can provide the requested information to the Council so it can decide if formal enforcement action is required.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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