Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development near his home. Mr X says the application should have been determined by the Council’s planning committee. He also says the case officer’s final report was inaccurate and the Council failed to consider material changes to the scheme before granting planning permission.

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.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered his comments in response.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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.
8. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
9. In this case, Mr X says the planning application should have been referred to the planning committee for determination. He says the application was previously considered by the committee and there have been significant changes to the scheme since members resolved to grant permission. Mr X also says many other residents have objected to the proposal since the planning committee considered the application. However, the Council’s scheme of delegation changed in 2019 and I am satisfied the Council properly considered if the application should be referred back to the planning committee before deciding it could be determined by officers using their delegated authority. As the Council properly considered the matter it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X has also raised many concerns about the impact of the development and says the planning officer’s final report was flawed. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the scheme before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the changes to the proposal and decided there were no material issues that would alter the recommendation to grant planning permission. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was flawed. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman