Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application to extend one of its own properties. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to extend a property it owns to adapt to the needs of a disabled occupant. He says the Council:
• Failed to contact him before it applied for planning permission.
• Will build over the property boundaries; and
• Has granted itself planning permission for a massive extension to a terraced property which it would have rejected if it had been made by anyone else.

He also says the proposal will block light to his only rear ground floor window.

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 relevant law is The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 (as amended). This forbids local authorities from deciding their own planning applications (under Regulation 3) if the committee, sub-committee, or officer responsible for the decision is also responsible for managing the land or buildings involved. This ensures impartiality in planning decisions.
6. An officer in the Council’s housing department made the application to extend the house next to Mr X’s home. The Planning Officer who recommended the application for approval, and the senior officer who approved the application, were not responsible for the property. Therefore the restriction described above does not apply and the Council was entitled to consider the planning application.
7. The Council is not required to contact neighbours before applying for planning permission. The Council publicised the application according to the statutory requirements and Mr X and others were able to comment.
8. The Planning Officer’s report includes a summary of Mr X’s objections. The Officer discussed the impact of the proposed extension on Mr X’s home. The extension is required to provide the tenant with accessible facilities. This is a relevant material planning consideration.
9. The Planning Officer concluded there would be an impact on Mr X’s home. However, they considered this was reduced as far as practicable. The report notes the extension is required for the medical needs of the occupant and gave weight to this need.
10. Having considered the relevant planning consideration, the Council decided to grant planning permission. From the information we have seen, the Council followed the correct process leading to its decision to approve the application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve a planning application to extend one of its own properties.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman