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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. He says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission was not in line with its planning policy. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property.

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 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

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. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. However, the officer decided there would not be a significant impact on Mr X’s home in terms of overbearing and loss of light or privacy. The Council also explained further in response to Mr X’s complaint why it did not consider there would be an unacceptable impact on his home.
8. Mr X says the development does not comply with the Council’s planning policy. While planning policy will be a material planning consideration, a planning authority does not always need to strictly follow it on all applications and failing to comply with aspects of policy and guidance is not necessarily fault. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has explained why the development would still be acceptable.
9. 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.
10. Mr X has also raised concerns about the party wall and possible damage to his property. But these will be private civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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