Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for four properties. This is because the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• should not have granted planning permission for four properties to be built on land near to her home.
• made its planning decision based on inaccurate information and failed to take account of objections.
• failed to follow planning procedures as the application should have been considered at a planning committee.
• was very late in responding to her complaints.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or there is not enough evidence of fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant. I have also considered information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I carefully considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. A field separates Mrs X’s home and the field on which the development will be built. From the evidence I have seen, the proposed development will not significantly affect Mrs X’s enjoyment of her property. This does not constitute enough personal injustice for us to investigate.
8. Regarding Mrs X’s concern that the Council did not follow planning procedures, the publicity required for a planning application depends on the nature of the development.
9. In this case, the requirement was for a site notice or neighbour notification (minor development). The Council consulted neighbours and statutory bodies regarding the proposed development. Neighbour objections alone do not mean the Council must refuse planning permission.
10. There is no requirement in law for this development to be considered by the Planning Committee. The Council’s decision here is consistent with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and their Scheme of Officer Delegation. These documents say the Planning Committee only determines approximately 10% of planning applications. These are generally ones which raise issues of policy or are particularly contentious.
11. The evidence shows that the Council adhered to planning law and guidance when making this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman