Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• failed to publicise his neighbour’s amended planning application
• failed to consider his representations on the amended plans; and
• failed to consider the obstruction of his right of way caused by the now approved plans.

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. The law says councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, views from a property or a reduction in its value. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
6. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. A council must be able to show it has considered the material planning considerations that are engaged by the planning process. Evidence is usually found in the case officer’s report. The records should show what considerations were taken into account and what the council made of them.
7. Normally, a case officer will prepare a report, assessing the application against relevant local plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
8. The courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues
• do not need to be perfect; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key material issues.
9. Mr X’s neighbour put in a planning application to extend their home. The Council publicised the application and Mr X objected.
10. The Council discussed the objections with the neighbour who put in amended plans.
11. The Council did not publicise the new plans. There is no requirement for the Council as Local Planning Authority (LPA) to publicised amended plans. It is for the Council to decide whether the amendments are significant enough to warrant further publicization. Also, there is no statutory definition of what is or is not a non-material amendment. This is a matter for the council to decide.
12. In this case the Council considered the changes were minor and it decided not to consult further.
13. Mr X objected to the new plans saying the changes will obstruct his right of way. However, his neighbour had signed the application form confirming they own all the land subject to the planning application. Also, land ownership and private rights of way are civil matters and are not material planning considerations.
14. I understand Mr X is concerned the Council should have considered his objections and complains it has not referenced the right of way issued in the Planning Officer’s report. However, as explained above, private rights of way and land ownership are not material planning considerations. If his neighbour has encroached on his land or obstructed his right of way, this is a civil matter for Mr X to resolve with his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman