Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says there were errors in the case officer’s report and the Council failed to properly consider the impact the proposed development would have on his amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. Mr X says the case officer incorrectly referred to his rear garden as a front garden. He says this diminishes the impact the new development will have on his home and the case officer did not properly consider the acceptability of the development in line with the Council’s policies and guidance. Mr X says the development will significantly overlook his property and cause a loss of privacy.
7. The Council has accepted the case officer’s report incorrectly referred to Mr X’s rear garden as a front garden. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice because of this error as it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had the officer correctly referred to Mr X’s garden.
8. The Council says the development will not have an unacceptable impact on Mr X’s property. This is due to the distance between Mr X’s home and the application site. The application site is a bungalow, and the dormer will be sat within the roof slope which will further reduce any impact. The Council also says the dormer will serve a non-habitable room.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But I am satisfied the Council has explained why the development is still acceptable and the Council is entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
10. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice because of errors in the case officer’s report.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman