The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development near his home. Mr X says the site elevations are high and the new buildings are too close to his property. Mr X says the development causes overlooking and overshadowing and his home has lost value.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X 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.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the separation distances between the development and existing properties but decided these were sufficient and in line with the Council’s policy. The officer also addressed Mr X’s concerns about the single storey garage proposed near his home. However, the officer decided the garage would not cause overshadowing or adversely impact Mr X’s residential amenity. The acceptability of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meeting and the impact of the site’s ground levels was considered as part of an application to discharge the planning conditions.
Mr X says his home has lost value because of the development. However, the impact on property values is not a material planning matter.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But it was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman