Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the system used by the Council to determine planning applications. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the system used by the Council to determine planning applications prevents objectors presenting their objections in person to the planning committee. As a result, he says he was prevented from making objections to an application for a development which will impact negatively on his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Outline planning permission was granted for a housing development on a site close to Mr X’s home. The reserved matters application followed and the Chairman’s Panel agreed that a delegated decision by officers could be made on it rather than consideration by the planning committee.
7. Mr X submitted his objections to the reserved matters application which he felt impacted unduly on his amenity. The officer report considered his objections, including those concerning overlooking and loss of light, but permission was granted.
8. Unhappy with the decision, and that it had been decided under delegated powers, Mr X complained to the Council. The Council explained the delegated procedures it used for the majority of applications and confirmed that his objections had been taken into account.
9. It apologised for two clear errors in the officer report which noted the wrong number of dwellings and had crucially missed out the word “not” when stating that there would be no undue level of overlooking or loss of light to neighbouring properties. It apologised for this but satisfied itself that all material considerations had been taken into account and that there had been no procedural fault. The Council also responded to a number of specific questions Mr X had raised.
10. While I understand Mr X may well have been confused by the absence of the word “not” from the report, its intended meaning was explained and the Council properly explained its procedure for determining the application. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in how the application was decided and it is not our role to question decisions the Council has made if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman