Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a site near the complainant’s homes. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainants have not been caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X have complained on behalf of themselves and their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Y and Mr and Mrs Z, about how the Council dealt with two planning applications for a site near their homes.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr and Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

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.

What happened

5. The Council received a planning application to erect a building to house an existing outdoor swimming pool on the street where the complainants live. The complainants objected to the proposal and the application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for consideration. The planning committee granted permission subject to conditions.
6. Shortly after the Council granted planning permission, the complainant’s neighbour submitted another application to change the use of the swimming pool so it could be used for private hire. This application was withdrawn.
7. The Complainants say the Council did not properly consider the planning applications. They say that both applications contained inaccurate and misleading information. They also argue the Council did not properly consider the impact on neighbouring properties.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications at a site near the complainant’s homes. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council and the complainants have not been caused any significant injustice.
9. The complainants say the application for a building to house the swimming pool was based on inaccurate information. They argue the block plans submitted by the applicant do not accurately show the boundary between the application site and Mr and Mrs Y’s home. However, I cannot say the complainants have been caused any significant injustice in this regard as the Council could still assess the potential impact of the development and relationship between the properties before deciding the proposed development was acceptable.
10. The complainants have also said the Council did not consider their concerns or the impact on neighbouring properties. However, the case officer’s report does detail the objections raised by the complainants before concluding that the development will not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity. The impact on residential amenity was also discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to approve the application. As the Council properly considered this issue it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council.
11. The complainants have also raised concerns about the second application their neighbour made to change the use of the swimming pool so it could be used for private hire. They say the plans for the second application again incorrectly showed the site boundary, the measurements for the applicant’s driveway were wrong and information about parking for the site was misleading. The complainants say the Council accepted there were errors, but still recommended the application be approved by the planning committee. However, as this application was withdrawn before it went to the planning committee for determination, I cannot say the complainants have been caused any significant injustice.
12. The complainants have also raised concerns about the Council including their personal details in information available to the public. The Ombudsman will not investigate this issue. The complainants can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if they are concerned about how the Council handles personal data or possible data breaches as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council and the complainants have not been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman