The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension at a site adjoining the complainants’ properties. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault in how the Council considered the planning application is likely to have affected the outcome.
The complaint
The complainants are a group of residents whose properties adjoin the development site. They say the Council failed to properly consider their neighbour’s planning application because: Their objections were not properly considered.
There is inconsistency with previous planning decisions.
The proposal is non-complaint with the Council’s Development Policies and its guidelines for the Conservation Area.
The loss of light and the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties was not considered.
The potential for subsidence was not considered.
There was no Environmental Impact Assessment.
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 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) When assessing complaints about planning decisions, we consider whether there was procedural fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the outcome. If there is evidence of fault, we consider whether this likely to have affected the planning outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application available on the Council’s website.
My assessment
I appreciate the complainants disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for this development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, we consider if there is evidence of procedural fault in the way it was made. And even if there is evidence of some fault, we may still decide not to investigate the complaint if the fault is unlikely to have affected the decision on the application.
I find there is insufficient evidence that any fault in the decision-making process has affected the overall decision, so the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint. In reaching this view I am mindful that: The case officer visited the application site, and there was no statutory requirement to visit surrounding properties.
The Council’s Conservation and Design team was consulted on the proposal, and concluded it would cause some very slight harm to the character of the Conservation Area.
The objections from neighbours are summarised in the delegated report, and the case officer provides a response to these concerns. It should be noted the strength or volume of opposition to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing permission.
The report goes on to consider the impact of the proposal on the character/appearance of the Conservation Area, and on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, including the Building Research Establishment daylight assessment guidance.
Each planning application is considered on its own merits, and it is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s professional judgement on the application, where it has had regard to the relevant issues in reaching its decision.
Loss of a view, Party Wall matters, and fears of damage to private property are not material planning considerations.
An Environmental Impact Assessment would not normally be required for a householder application proposing a single storey extension.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence to suggest that fault by the Council has affected its decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman