Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. She says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the application. Mrs X also complains the new dwellings will be over dominant and out of character with the area. She says the Council failed to properly assess the impact on historic buildings and the environment.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered 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 a decision was made.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application for the new dwellings and the second application to amend the plans, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the historic area and surrounding countryside. The officer also considered the impact on neighbouring properties before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint also explains why a heritage impact assessment and environment statement were not necessary.
8. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, but it was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable. 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.
9. Mrs X has also complained about how the Council publicised the applications and says she was not properly notified about the proposals.
10. Councils are required to give publicity to applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website. In addition, the Council must;

• erect a site notice and put a publication in a local newspaper if the proposal departs from the development plan or affects a public right of way;
• erect a site notice or notify neighbours and place a publication in a local newspaper if the application is for a major development;
• erect a site notice or notify neighbours if the development is minor.

11. The Council says it erected a site notice but did not need to write to Mrs X to tell her about the application as her property was not directly next to the development site. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but even if I found the Council at fault in this regard, I could not say Mrs X was caused any significant injustice as a result. She was still aware of both applications before planning permission was granted and the Council did still properly consider the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mrs X had more opportunity to comment on the proposals.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mrs X has also not been caused significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman