Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Authority dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. He says the Authority failed to properly consider the impact of the development and information was not disclosed to the planning committee before members voted to grant planning permission. 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
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 Authority properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, 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 cause significantly harmful overshadowing or overlooking. The case officer also considered the impact on parking before deciding the development would be acceptable.
9. Mr X says the planning committee members were not given all the relevant information and the Authority did not visit his home to properly assess the impact of the proposal. But planning authorities do not need to visit neighbouring properties to assess an application and the acceptability of a proposal can usually be determined from the development site. In this case, the Authority has explained how the application was considered without visiting Mr X’s home. Mr X has raised concerns about the information available to planning committee members. But the application details, including Mr X’s objections, would have been available to the committee before members voted to grant planning permission and they could have chosen to defer the application to a later date if they considered additional information was necessary.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Authority’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Authority was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Authority properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman