The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application for an extension. He says; the proposed plans were contrary to the Council’s policies and supplemental planning guidance the Planning Officer’s report contained errors about the size and extent of the proposal; and the Planning Committee ignored his speech, but it had been briefed by Officers and visited the site beforehand.
Mr X says the extension overshadows his home and has created a terracing effect.
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 information available on the Council’s website; 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.
The Planning Officer visited the site and prepared a report on the proposal.
The report includes a description of the property and a summary of Mr X’s objections. It details the relevant national and local policies and explains why the Officer recommends approval despite the proposed plans not meeting the Council’s Supplemental Planning Guidance on householder development.
The Council confirm Members of the Planning Committee visited the site before the Committee meeting.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mr X’s home and the character of the area before granting planning permission. The Council says the percentage increase in floor space which was stated in the Planning Officer’s report is an estimate based on the existing layout plans submitted with the application. It was not an exact figure based on the layout of the property when it was first built.
Mr X also complains the Committee failed to consider his objections to the application. The minutes show the Members were referred to the assessment in the Planning Officer’s report relating to Mr X’s objections.
The Committee Members did not have any questions for Mr X following his objections and moved to vote. However, it is for Members to decide what weight to give the information presented to them, and to consider whether they have enough information to make a decision on a planning application. In this case, the Members visited the site, considered the report (which includes Mr X’s objections), and listened to him speak at the meeting. Having considered the information before it, the Committee voted to approve the application.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to grant planning permission. But the Council 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 complaint because based on the information I have seen we are unlikely to find fault in the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman