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 X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not take all material considerations into account when it decided to approve a planning application. Mr X said the approval of the planning permission has caused him financial loss due to impact on his lighting costs and solar panel effectiveness. He said his privacy has also been impacted and the process had been stressful. He wanted the planning permission to be altered and for the Council to pay him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X raised several concerns about a planning permission granted for a neighbouring property. The key issues related to the impact on his property and the way in which the decision was made.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised.
10. 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.
11. 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 X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman