The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved two planning applications close to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains the Council: Failed to tell him about planning applications to extend two properties next to his home.
Failed to consider the impact of both proposals on his home, particularly loss of privacy and light.
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 B, including the Council’s responses to him the planning information including the planning officer’s reports which are available on the Council’s website; and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B says the Council failed to tell him about two planning applications to extend neighbouring properties. The Council says its records show it wrote to Mr B notifying him of both applications. The addressee would have been ‘the occupier.’ I cannot speculate why Mr B did not receive them; however, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the letters were sent.
When a local planning authority (LPA) receives a planning application it must consider local and national planning policies as well as material planning considerations before deciding if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and include 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.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council assessed the acceptability of the two developments, including the impact on the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s reports specifically refer to the impact of the proposals on Mr B’s home. The reports also note the relevant national and local policies and explain why the planning officer considers the proposals are acceptable.
I understand Mr B disagrees with the Council. But the planning officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to recommend the applications for approval. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I will find fault.
Mr B also complains about an outbuilding which has been erected in the gardens of one of the properties. He says this affects the light to his home. The Council confirms it has visited the site and measured the outbuilding. The Council agrees that it is close to Mr B’s boundary and is likely to have a negative impact on the light he receives. However, it confirms the outbuilding is three to four centimetres above the height allowed by permitted development. The Council considers enforcement action against the outbuilding is not a proportionate response to a breach of only three or four centimetres.
Councils are not under a duty to take formal enforcement action whenever they identify a breach of planning control. Rather, government guidance requires them to strike a balance between acting to uphold the integrity of the planning system while also acting proportionately.
When we investigate, we are considering whether the Council has failed to perform a duty or if there are flaws in the decision-making process. We cannot replace our judgement with that of the decision maker to determine if they or someone who opposes the decision are correct. On this basis I am satisfied the Council has followed the expected process. It has visited the site and measured the outbuilding during and after completion. It has decided it is not a proportionate response to take enforcement action when all that could be achieved would be to lower the height of the outbuilding by a few centimetres.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because: On balance, we are satisfied the Council sent letters to Mr B alerting him to the planning applications.
We are unlikely to find fault in the Councils’ processing and consideration of the two planning applications.
We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided not to take action against the neighbour’s outbuilding.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman