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. He says the decision to grant permission was based on inaccurate information in the case officer’s report. Mr X says he informed the Council about the errors in the report before the planning committee meeting, but his concerns were ignored.

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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. In this case, Mr X says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission was based on incorrect information in the case officer’s report. Mr X says he highlighted his concerns about the report to the Council before the committee meeting and requested the report be withdrawn. Mr X says his request was ignored and the meeting went ahead as planned.
6. Although Mr X may not have agreed with the case officer’s findings, the report did assess the material planning matters including the concerns raised by Mr X about the development. The acceptability of the development was also considered by the planning committee before members voted to grant planning permission. The planning committee also could have requested additional information or deferred the application for determination at a later date had they considered it necessary.
7. The Council has accepted the case officer’s report incorrectly referred to the number of residents that objected to the proposal. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused significant injustice because of this error. The actual number of objections received in response to a proposal is not grounds in itself for refusing an application. The objections were also summarised and addressed in the case officer’s report and would have been available to members.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman