Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council failed to properly consider an application for development at a neighbouring property. In particular she says the Council failed to consider a neighbourhood plan, made no calculations to show the increase in floorspace and did not take into account the visual impact of the development on neighbours. She also complains the Council did not re-consult when the developer amended their plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When determining an application for planning permission the Council must consider relevant material planning considerations. The neighbourhood plan Mrs X refers to is a material planning consideration but it is not the only one and the Council must decide what weight to give it. Just because a plan aims to achieve a specific outcome this does not mean that all proposals which do not comply must be refused. Loss of outlook is not a material planning consideration.
6. The planning officer’s report, which sets out the recommendation for the outcome of an application and the reasoning behind it, shows the Council considered the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties and the streetscene and it is not for us to question the officer’s judgement.
7. The Council confirms officers at the committee meeting held to determine the application advised members they could refuse the application if they identified harm from non-compliance with the neighbourhood plan. But having considered the application members voted to approve the application and the Council therefore granted planning permission for it. We could not therefore say, on balance, that the Council did not consider the neighbourhood plan in reaching its decision.
8. While Mrs X believes the Council should have calculated the increase in floorspace resulting from the proposal there is no requirement for this. The plans clearly showed the development as proposed and the planning officer set out the key external measurements for the development.
9. It is arguable that the Council should have re-consulted neighbours on amended plans submitted by the developer, and that its failure to do so may amount to fault, we will not consider this point further as we could not say it caused Mrs X significant injustice. The amendments reduced the impact of the proposal and the Council ultimately decided the proposal as amended was acceptable. It is therefore pure speculation to say that had Mrs X and the other neighbours been aware of the amendments, their comments would have persuaded the committee to refuse the application.
10. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman