Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision to approve a planning application for a site close to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the process the Authority followed when coming to its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for the installation of four shepherds’ huts on farmland near his home. He says the Council failed to consider:
• guidelines in the local neighbourhood plan; and
• the development is not required to support the already thriving tourism economy.
2. Mr X says the decision sets a precedent for uncontrolled development of farmland. And has a negative impact on the parish.
3. He wants the planning decision reversed.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. LPAs must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
8. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and includes a summary of the objections received from the public and the parish council. It sets out why the officer has made their recommendation to approve the application.
9. The planning committee considered the officer’s report before voting five to one in favour of approving the application. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault in the process the Authority followed before deciding to approve the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman