Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider a Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss an appeal when it granted planning permission which allowed his neighbour to raise their roof.

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. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the Planning Inspector’s previous dismissal of an appeal against the Council’s refusal of a previous planning application to raise the roof and develop a neighbouring property.
6. The planning officer visited the site and prepared a report on the proposed scheme. This includes a summary of Mr X’s objections and a reference to the Planning Inspectors earlier decision. However, the report confirms the new proposal is for a different design with different height and scale to the previous application. It reiterates the application must be considered on its individual merit.
7. The report notes the impact on Mr X’s property. The officer also noted the loss of view is not a material planning consideration and considered the loss of outlook from Mr X’s home. Their professional opinion was the proposed development would be visible from Mr X’s home and the new roof will appear larger in volume, size and scale compared the existing one. However, because of the limited increase in the height and the distance between the properties, the officer decided the proposed scheme would not result in harm from overbearing or overshadowing impacts that would be significant enough to justify refusal.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But I am satisfied the Council has considered the relevant planning history and explained why the development is still acceptable.The Council is entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman