Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbours planning application and a possible breach of planning control. Mr X says the Council failed to consult residents about the application and did not properly assess the impact the development would have on his property. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a possible breach of planning control.

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, 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 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, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties. The case officer also considered the impact on the conservation area and trees at the site before deciding the proposal was acceptable.
8. Mr X says the Council failed to notify residents about the application. The Council has accepted that some residents did not receive a consultation letter as they should have. However, I cannot say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of this error as he was aware of the application and had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X also says the case officer did not visit his property to assess the impact. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when assessing an application and the acceptability of the development can usually be determined from the development site.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. 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 complained the Council has failed to take any action in relation to a possible breach of planning control.
11. 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. 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. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
12. Mr X says his neighbour is operating a business from their home without permission. However, I am satisfied the Council has properly looked into Mr X’s concerns before deciding it has no grounds on which to take enforcement action as it has not seen sufficient evidence to show there has been a breach of planning control. The Council says its investigation will remain open and if it receives additional information regarding the use of the site it will consider if enforcement action is necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman