Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to Mr X and Mrs Y’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the application or reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to consider the impact of a new development on their home. They says the Council failed to properly consider the planning application and failed to ensure safe access from the property to the highway.
2. Mr X and Mrs Y says the Council’s actions have caused them distress and they had to pay a planning consultant to assist them in raising objections to the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainants and their representative. I have also considered information about the development on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X and Mrs Y are unhappy that the Council did not carry out a site visit to view the potential impact of the development on their home. The Council is not obliged to carry out site visits when reaching a decision on planning permission. Officers are able to use their judgement to reach decisions based on submitted plans and mapping tools. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council not carrying out a site visit.
8. Mr X and Mrs Y say the Council consider misleading plans. I have noted that the “location plan” showing the location of the development in relation to their home appears to be inaccurate. However subsequent plans submitted show the relationship between their home and the proposed development. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault as there is no evidence the Council relied on inaccurate plans when it granted planning permission.
9. The Council has considered the impact of the development on Mr X and Mrs Y’s home, the impact on nearby listed buildings and highway safety. The Council has done so in line with its policies and in consultation with statutory consultees such as the local highways authority. The Council’s consideration of these issues is set out in its officer report to its planning committee. As the Council has demonstrated that it has considered material issues relating to the development it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council has reached its decision to grant planning permission for the development.
10. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the planning application for the new development next to Mr X and Mrs Y’s home we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman