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 complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs X, have complained about how the Council dealt with their neighbour’s planning application. Mr and Mrs X say the Council has not properly considered the impact the development will have on their property and believe it has misinterpreted a previous decision by the Planning Inspector.
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 and Mrs X and 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, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr and Mrs X’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the proposed works would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour previously made a similar application for the site which was refused by the Council and an appeal against the decision to refuse permission was dismissed by the Planning Inspector. Mr and Mrs X say the Council has misinterpreted the Inspector’s decision and used this to justify granting permission for the amended development.
However, the Council has explained its interpretation of the Inspector’s decision and the previous decision by the Planning Inspector was a material planning matter. The case officer’s report explained how the new development addressed the issues raised with the previous proposal. The officer also considered the impact the development would have on Mr and Mrs X’s home including potential loss of light and privacy.
I understand Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their 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 and Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman