Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs X want.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council did not fully consider their objections to a planning application for an extension near to their home. They said the extension has forced them to reconfigure the layout of their home. They would like the council to review the decision and adjustments requested to be put in place.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(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 and Mrs X and the Council’s complaint responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr and Mrs X raised several concerns about a planning permission a neighbour was granted. The key issues related to the impact on their property and the way in which the decision was made.
6. 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.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
8. 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 objections and addressed the concerns raised. The planning committee also considered the acceptability of the development and members visited the site before voting to approve the application.
9. It is for the Council as the planning authority in this case to determine what level of weight to give all material considerations and we cannot question its judgement on this point.
10. We could not in any event say the Council must revoke or change the planning permission to require additional mitigation for the impact of the development on Mr and Mrs X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome they want.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman