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 a reserved matters application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his objections and 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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Outline planning permission establishes the acceptability of a development, subject to latter agreement to details of ‘reserved matters’. Reserved matters may be any or all of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development.
6. In this case, the Council received an application for outline permission for a residential development near Mr X’s home. The Council refused the application, but permission was granted following an appeal to the Planning Inspector.
7. The Council has since approved the reserved matters application. Mr X has complained about the decision to approve the reserved matters application. He says the new development does not comply with the Council’s planning policy and will cause overlooking, overshadowing and be overbearing.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before approving the application. The case officer’s report summarised resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided there would not be a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. The acceptability of the application was also discussed at the planning committee meeting and the principle of the development was already established by the outline planning permission.
9. Mr X says the Council should pay any legal costs he incurs pursuing a right to light case. But right to light will be a private civil matter between Mr X and the developer.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the reserved matters application. 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.

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