Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or the decision to change the housing settlement boundary. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

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 development near his home. He also complains about the decision to include the development site in the Housing Settlement Boundary (HSB).

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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Planning Inspectorate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has complained about the decision to include the development site within the HSB. He says the site is too narrow for development and the Council has not explained what influenced the decision to include the site.
7. The Council says settlement boundaries were reviewed as part of its preparations for the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan to ensure they were up to date and reflected any changes since the boundaries were drawn up.
8. While I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to include the site in the HSB, it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council in this regard. I am satisfied the Council followed the proper process. It carried out a public consultation as required, and the plan was examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the Planning Inspector.
9. Mr X has also complained about the decision to grant planning permission for the site. He says the new dwelling will be too close to his home and will affect his privacy.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mr X’s home and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the sitting and design of the proposed dwelling minimised the impact on the neighbouring properties and said refusing the application on amenity grounds would not be justified.
13. Mr X says the plans he was shown by the developer were not the same plans submitted with the application. His objections were based on these original plans, and he says his concerns about the development were not properly considered.
14. However, the letter sent to Mr X to tell him about the development would have made it clear which plans the application was based on. This information was also available to view on the Council’s website. Furthermore, Mr X’s concerns about the development were detailed and addressed in the case officer’s report.
15. I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable and 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.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman