Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not properly dealt with a development near his home because:
• the Council conducted a poor consultation process;
• the planning officer’s report misrepresented the objections;
• the planning officer failed to take account of detailed objections made by the PA and other neighbours; and
• the planning officer ignored other ongoing planning breaches by the applicant.
2. Mr X says he has suffered a loss of amenity because of the development’s proximity to his home.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated that part of Mr X’s complaint about planning breaches being ignored. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents provided by Mr X. I considered documents provided by the Council and publicly available material.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

9. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for the site next to Mr X’s home. Some development had already taken place on the site.
10. Mr X objected to the planning application. The Council granted planning permission with conditions.
11. Mr X complained to the Council that the planning committee had been misled because it had been told some of the existing development work had been completed without planning permission.

Analysis

12. The Ombudsman only looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
13. Planning officers' reports to committee are not to be read with undue rigour, but with reasonable benevolence, fairly, as a whole, focussing on substance rather than form, and bearing in mind that they are written for councillors with local knowledge. The report does not need to set out and discuss each policy in turn.
14. The officer’s report:
• describes the application accurately, and explicitly references the aspects which Mr X says impact on his amenity.
• summarises objections relating to the planning history of the site and development allegedly undertaken without planning permission.
• contains an analysis of the impact on residential amenity against the relevant policies. It refers to aspects of the application affecting Mr X the most as already in use, but does not say whether they have planning permission already or not.
15. The minutes of the planning committee meeting show:
• Objectors had raised concerns about parts of the development having already been completed without planning permission.
• The applicant outlined ways they intended to mitigate any impact on Mr X and others.
• The nature and extent of the impact on Mr X’s amenity was clearly stated.
• An elected member addressed the planning committee and said they thought no irregularities has been found by a recent planning enforcement investigation.
16. Objections had been made about the lack of planning permission, the application included those aspects in it and there would be no good reason to apply for planning permission for development which had already been permitted. On the balance of probabilities, the planning committee were aware of the planning history of the site.
17. The person who spoke about the planning enforcement investigation was an elected member, not a planning officer.
18. The committee debated the merits of the application. It was clearly aware of the extent of the application, the objections raised and the specific impact on Mr X’s amenity.
19. If the committee had concerns about the apparent discrepancy between the objections and the elected member’s statement, it could have asked for clarification. It did not. On the balance of probabilities, the committee understood that aspects of the development already in place did not have planning permission.
20. The committee had sufficient information about the development and the impact on Mr X to enable it to make a decision. While I understand Mr X is unhappy with the outcome, this was a decision the Council was entitled to take. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council is not at fault. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

22. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about a poor consultation process because it is clear he objected to the proposed development and there is no evidence of fault or injustice.
23. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about misrepresenting objections because there is no evidence of fault or injustice.
24. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about objections not being taken account of because there is no evidence of fault or injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman