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 an outline planning application for a residential development in the area where he lives. Mr X says the planning officer failed to provide fair and comprehensive advice to the planning committee and the proper processes were not followed.

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 before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Outline planning permission establishes the acceptability of development, subject to latter agreement to details of ‘reserved matters’. Reserved matters may be any or all of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development.
8. In this case, the Council received an outline planning application for a residential development with all matters except access reserved. The Council previously refused permission for a similar scheme at the same site. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee and members resolved that authority be delegated to the head of planning to approve the application.
9. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with the application and says the proper processes were not followed before permission was granted. He says the planning officer failed to advise members it was not necessary for a new access to be created for the site. He also says the Local Highway Authority’s (LHA) requirements were downplayed and not properly explained. Mr X says the planning officer also failed to make committee members aware of the material considerations. However, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the proposal before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report to the committee addressed the suitability of the access and the comments made by the LHA. The officer also referred to the LHA’s requirement for frontage development and said the layout of the development would be dealt with as part of the reserved matters application. The Council has explained why this was not added as a planning condition. The case officer’s report also addressed concerns raised about the loss of hedgerow, but the officer decided the harm could be offset.
10. Mr X says the planning committee was not given sufficient information. However, members could have requested additional information if they considered it was necessary.
11. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman