Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development near to properties owned by the complainant. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X has complained the Council granted planning permission for development near properties she owns. She is particularly worried about the impact on parking and her tenants’ businesses. Mrs X also says the Council delayed in telling her the outcome of the application.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision on a planning application. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X which included the Council’s response to her concerns. I have also seen information about the planning application on the Council’s website. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application for development near to properties owned by Mrs X. The application was mainly for the change of use of business premises. The Council had to consider the planning merits of the application and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal.
7. The Council publicised the application and Mrs X sent her comments on it. A planning officer set out the planning issues in a report which included the issues Mrs X had raised. Because of changes in national planning rules, the change of use itself no longer needed planning permission. The Council could only consider changes to the fabric of the building.
8. The Council decided there were no valid grounds to refuse the application and so granted planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. While I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, we do not provide a right of appeal against it. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council considered the planning application and, in the absence of fault, cannot question its decision to grant planning permission.
10. Further, the Council accepts there was some delay in responding to Mrs X when she asked about the outcome of the application. This did not cause her injustice that warrants our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman