Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault which has caused the complainant significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs D, says the Council made multiple errors when considering a planning application for changes to a property close to his home.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I do not intend to investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home as I am unlikely to find fault.
6. We do not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we must consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. For applications such as the one which is the subject of this complaint, the law requires a council to erect a site notice or notify neighbours. The Council says an officer visited the site, and a site notice was erected. It has provided a photograph confirming this. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised the application.
8. From the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council was aware the application site is within a conservation area. And that it is visible from the street before granting planning permission. The case officer also addressed the impact on neighbouring amenity in their report before deciding the impact would not be unacceptable. The case officer proposed conditions to minimise overlooking which the planning committee accepted.
9. I understand Mrs D disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement. We cannot question this unless it there is evidence of fault. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mrs D says the Council took six months to approve the application and this caused his stress and anxiety. Such planning applications should be decided within 12 weeks. However, the Council can extend the time with the agreement of the applicant. Alternatively, if no agreement is made, the applicant can appeal against non-determination to the Planning Inspector. Third parties have no such appeal rights. I do not consider extending the time to determine the application caused Mrs D a significant personal injustice.
11. Mrs D also complains the Council originally refused to allow her to speak at the planning committee meeting. However, it overturned this decision and Mrs D and her neighbour both made their objections and comments on the planning application to the planning committee before it decided to approve the application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in which has caused the complainant significant personal injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman