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 his neighbour’s planning application. He says the development has a significant impact on his property and the area.
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 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 Mr X’s property and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, be overbearing or cause unacceptable overshadowing.
Mr X says the Council did not consider if the applicants needed to extend their property. But the applicant’s circumstances were not a material planning matter.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the 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.
Mr X has also complained that since receiving planning permission his neighbour has built a summerhouse and the two developments cover a significant amount of the green space in his neighbour’s garden. However, the summerhouse was built using permitted development rights and therefore could be built without making a planning application to the Council. The summerhouse was also built after the Council had already granted permission for the extension and therefore it could not take this into account when assessing the proposal.
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