Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s homes. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y have complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near their homes. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y say the Council failed to properly publicise the application and the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate information and not in line with the Council’s policy. They have also raised concerns about the Council’s visits to their homes to assess the application. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y say the development will have a significant impact on their properties.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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 the complainants and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainants had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y say the Council failed to properly publicise the application. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. In this case, the Council says it wrote to the residents of the neighboring properties and erected a site notice. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y say the Council did not write to all the residents it should have, and the site notice was not put in an appropriate location. However, even if I did consider the Council at fault in this regard, I could not say the complainants have suffered any significant injustice as a result. They were aware of the proposal and raised their objections before planning permission was granted.
9. I am also satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on Mr and Mrs X’s and Mrs Y’s properties but decided unacceptable harm would not be caused to residential amenity. The impact of the proposal was also discussed at the committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
10. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y disagree and say committee members were misled and the planning decision was based on inaccurate measurements and did not comply with planning policy. They also say the Council did not have sufficient information to validate the application and permitted development rights should have been removed as a condition of the planning permission.
11. However, it was for the Council to decide if it had enough information to validate the application. The Council has also explained how the measurements for the proposal were calculated and why it did not consider it necessary to restrict permitted development rights. Members visited the development site and the complainant’s homes and therefore were familiar with the relationships between the properties before granting planning permission. Mr X also spoke at the planning committee meeting, so members were aware of his concerns about the development.
12. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y have also complained about the Council’s site visits. They say the case officer’s visit to their homes should have been professional and confidential, but the officer told the applicant about the visit. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y say this led to an intimidating and distressing situation. They also complain that only one planning committee member went inside their properties to assess the potential impact of the development.
13. However, it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council in this regard. It has explained why it considered it necessary to tell the applicant about the site visit and this decision was in line with its policy. There was also no obligation for members to visit the site or assess the potential impact from inside neighbouring properties.
14. Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y say their Human Rights have been breached. The Ombudsman cannot decide if a council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. However, we can make decisions about whether or not a council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the impact the development will have in relation to the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
15. I understand Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the development 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.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman