Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications to change the use of land near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice because of any delays determining the applications.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with retrospective planning applications to change the use of land near her home. Mrs X says the Council took too long to determine the applications and the case officer misled planning committee members. Mrs X also complains that members did not visit the site as they should have.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. Mrs X contacted the Council to complain about the residents of nearby properties changing the use of land without permission. I understand Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to invite retrospective applications to regularise the use of the land. But councils do not need to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control and informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result.
7. I am also satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the developments, including the impact on biodiversity and neighbouring amenity, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s reports said adequate screening would still be provided and the regenerated vegetation provided a habitat for wildlife. The planning committee members also discussed the acceptability of the applications before voting to grant planning permission.
8. Mrs X says committee members did not visit the site as they should have. But planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a development using photographs and other tools.
9. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the decisions to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the applications were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question these decisions unless they were tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mrs X has also complained about how long it took the Council to determine the applications. However, I cannot say she has suffered any significant injustice in this regard. The Council has now decided the applications are acceptable and granted planning permission. Therefore, Mrs X did not need to live near unacceptable developments for longer than necessary because of any delays.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mrs X has also not suffered significant injustice because of any delays deciding the applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman