Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s extension despite objection from him and his local town council. He believes the application should have been considered by the planning committee, rather than being decided under delegated authority by a planning officer, and says the extension will affect his enjoyment of his property by affecting light, privacy and outlook.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. The Council is the local planning authority for the area and it therefore has the power to determine applications for planning permission. The town council can comment on planning applications and recommend the Council approves or refuses them but it has no formal power to grant or refuse applications.
5. The town council recommended the Council refuse Mr X’s neighbour’s application and this recommendation was considered by the Chair of the Planning Committee and a council officer, but they decided not to put the matter to the Committee. I have seen nothing to suggest the Council’s decision on this point was fault, or that it was wrongly reached. We cannot therefore criticise it.
6. However, even if we could say the Council was wrong to delegate authority for the application to the planning officer we could not say this wrongly affected the outcome or caused Mr X significant injustice. This is because the planning officer considered the same points the Committee would have done and we could not say, on balance, that they would have reached a different decision faced with the same facts and comments.
7. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the planning officer’s view and the Council’s decision and he refers to two specific policies in support of his complaint. These policies stem from the Council’s local plan and set out circumstances in which the Council will not grant planning permission. Mr X believes his neighbour’s proposal breaches these policies and he thinks the Council should have refused planning permission. But the policies rely heavily on the judgement of planning officers to decide whether the impact of a proposed scheme is acceptable and planning officer has commented on them in their report and explained the reasons they think it is.
8. I appreciate Mr X does not share the planning officer’s view but this itself is not evidence of fault. The planning officer’s report explains how they reached their decision and I have seen no evidence of fault affecting it.
9. Mr X is unhappy the officer visited the application site but did not view the proposal from his property. But there was no requirement for them to visit Mr X’s property and it is therefore not fault that they did not.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman