Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has 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 there were mistakes in the case officer’s report and the planning committee members were misled. Mrs X says the new development will have a significant impact on the enjoyment of her garden and she is concerned her home may be damaged when the development is being built.

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, the Council has accepted the case officer’s report incorrectly said the access arrangements for the site were the same as a development previously approved. The Council also acknowledges the planning officer incorrectly said the development site was already being used by horses. However, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice because of these errors. The Council did still consider the acceptability of the proposal before granting planning permission and therefore it is unlikely the fault affected the decision to grant planning permission.
8. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on neighbouring properties and decided there would not be an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposed access for the site was also considered and the Council’s highway engineer confirmed the arrangements were acceptable.
9. Mrs X says there were other errors by the Council which influenced the decision to grant planning permission. She says the Council’s description of the site was misleading and it failed to consider the impact the development would have on resident’s gardens. Mrs X says the case officer also incorrectly said a previous application for the site was similar to the recent development. However, even if I were to say there was further fault by the Council in this regard, I again consider it unlikely this impacted the planning decision. Regardless of previous applications for the site, the acceptability of the development was still considered. The case officer also visited the site and was therefore aware of the relationship between the development site and neighbouring properties. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council has also explained why it does not consider there will be an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity because of the presence of horses on the land. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
10. Issues regarding land ownership or rights over land are not material planning matters. Damage caused by a development would also be a private civil matter between Mrs X and the developer.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice because of any fault with how the Council dealt with a planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman