Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council prejudiced the outcome of a planning application by granting planning permission for another linked proposal on the same site. He says the development will affect his enjoyment of his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the planning officer’s reports. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Outline planning permission was granted several years ago for development on a site which borders Mr X’s home. The developer then applied to the Council for planning permission for ‘reserved matters’ including the layout of the site and details of the new dwellings it intended to build. It did this with several separate but interlinked applications.
6. The developer submitted two applications for the final part of the site. The Council granted planning permission for one application but has not yet decided the second. Mr X complains that by granting planning permission for the first application the Council has prejudiced the outcome of the second application.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The developer submitted two separate applications for the site and ran the risk that one application may be approved while the other could be refused. The Council had to consider these applications on their merits and decide if they were acceptable.
8. The Council has not yet issued a decision on the second application but the evidence shows it recommended approval at the same point as granting planning permission for the first. This showed it considered the applications in tandem, albeit separately. The planning officer’s reports for the two applications show the Council considered the impact of the proposals on neighbour amenity and it is not for us to question its judgement on this point.
9. Mr X would like the Council to refuse the second application and negotiate changes with the developer to reduce the impact of the development on existing properties but this is not an outcome we can achieve. The Council has already decided the second proposal is acceptable, subject to certain final details, and we cannot make it change its view. In any case, the application is not yet formally decided so any complaint about the Council’s handling of the matter is premature as it has not yet caused Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman