Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his property and its decision to grant planning permission was based on assumptions. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties. Mr X says the case officer’s report failed to mention his dining room window and the impact the development will have on his home. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any fault by the Council in this regard. The Council has explained in response to Mr X’s complaint why it considered the proposal was acceptable and would not significantly impact Mr X’s property. Therefore, I consider it likely the planning decision would be the same had the case officer’s report included more detail.
7. Mr X says the Council did not visit his home to assess the impact the development would have. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when assessing an application and the acceptability of a proposal can often be established from the development site.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman