The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning approval to a neighbouring property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.
The complaint
The complainants, who I will call Mr & Mrs X, complain about the Council’s decision to grant planning approval to a neighbour for a rear extension, roof extension and outbuilding.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
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.
The Council approved a planning application it received from the owners of a home to the rear of Mr & Mrs X’s home. The application was for a single storey extension, roof extension and an outbuilding.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing a significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the proposals before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report detailed the planning history of the site, considered objections from neighbours including Mr & Mrs X and addressed the impact on neighbouring properties. The officer decided there would not be any substantive impacts on amenity in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy.
I understand Mr & Mrs X disagree, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was affected by fault.
Mr & Mrs X complain that the case officer did not properly inspect the site. However, the Council has provided details of when the site visit took place and, having reviewed the case officer’s report, I am satisfied that they had a clear understanding of the development site including the location of neighbouring properties. I therefore see no evidence of fault in this element of Mr & Mrs X’ complaint.
Mr & Mrs X complain that neighbours were not given time to speak at the committee meeting. I have listened to the recording of the meeting, and I note that those objecting to the plans were given the full three minutes to speak, as detailed in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. Others speaking were also given the same amount of time. I am therefore satisfied that there is no evidence of fault in how the committee meeting was held.
The application form did state that no trees would need to be removed or pruned during development, but Mr & Mrs X say this is not the case as trees did need to be removed in the applicants garden and work may damage trees in their own garden.
However, the trees in the applicants garden were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order and therefore did not require planning permission, meaning they were not a material planning matter. Therefore, it is likely the decision to grant permission would be the same had the applicant correctly completed the application form. I also do not consider that the loss of the trees in the applicants garden causes Mr & Mrs X an injustice.
Claims that Mr & Mrs X’s trees could be damaged is speculative. However, this is not something we would investigate anyway. Any damage to a tree by a neighbour could be remedied by private legal action for damages and in the event of any damage it would be reasonable to expect them to use this legal remedy.
Finally, Mr & Mrs X complain that the description on the planning application was misleading, and this may have resulted in less councillors attending the meeting. I have reviewed the description and I see no fault in how it is worded as it clearly summarises the proposals. Any suggestion that the wording affected the attendance of the committee meeting is speculative.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman