Blaby District Council (24 018 761)
Category : Planning > Planning applications
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 12 Mar 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
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 by the Council.
The complaint
- Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his objections and the development will have a significant impact on his property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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))
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- 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.
- 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.
- In this case, I am satisfied the Council 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 development would cause limited privacy issues and would not unduly impact neighbouring properties in terms of overbearing impact or loss of light.
- Mr X says the Council has ignored the 45-degree rule. But the case officer does address Mr X’s concerns about the impact the development will have on his home and explains why the development will be acceptable even though it does not comply with the 45-degree rule.
- I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council 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 Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman