Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application and application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD). Mr X says the Council failed to consult him about the proposals and the development will have a significant impact on his home.

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, the Council consulted Mr X about the application, and he objected to the proposal. Following this, the plans were amended, and planning permission was granted. Mr X has complained the Council failed to consult him again after the plans were amended and he therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the changes. The Council has accepted it should have re-consulted Mr X. However, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
8. I am satisfied the Council still properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. However, the case officer decided the development would not cause harmful overlooking, overshadowing or a loss of outlook or light.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. Therefore, I consider it likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the amended plans.
10. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s decision to grant his neighbour a CLOPUD and says the proposed extension will not be permitted development.
11. Permitted Development rights are national grants of planning permission that allow certain development to be carried out without making a planning application to the council. Someone may apply for a CLOPUD if they want formal confirmation that permitted development rights apply to the proposed works.
12. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the CLOPUD. But the case officer’s report sets out why the proposal will be permitted development. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman