Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the application and did not consider the impact on neighbouring properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and 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. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the case officer decided there would not be a harmful impact on neighbouring properties. The Council also considered the impact the minor material amendment to the plans would have on neighbouring amenity before approving the application.
8. Mr X says the Council did not visit his home. But there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before deciding an application and the impact of the development can often be assessed from the development site.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s 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.
10. Mr X says the Council did not properly consult residents about the application. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault. He was still aware of the application and able to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the applicant failed to disclose a connection to a Council employee when the initial planning application was submitted. The connection was disclosed when the application to amend the approved plans was submitted and the proposal was therefore referred to the planning committee for determination. However, as the Council properly considered the impact of the development, I consider it likely the planning decision would be the same had the first application also been determined by the committee.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman