Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, represents a group of neighbours. He complains the Council:
• Accepted a planning application containing untrue information
• Ignored objections to a planning application
• Ignored restrictive covenants
• Refused to liaise with residents; and
• Failed to include planning conditions agreed by the Planning Committee.
2. Mr X wants an independent review of highway safety issues. And to investigate the company to ensure it is fit to operate a children’s home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application for a property in Mr X’s road. The application was for a change of use from a private, residential home to a residential children’s home for three children and two supervising adults.
7. Mr X complains the application stated a private company as the owner of the property. However, when the application was made, Mr X says private tenants lived at the address.
8. I will not look into this point as whether the owner/resident stated on the planning application form was incorrect or not does not cause any injustice to Mr X or his neighbours.
9. Mr X says the Council ignored objections to the planning application, ignored restrictive covenants and refused to liaise with residents.
10. The Council publicised the application and Mr X and his neighbours put in their objections. A planning officer set out the planning issues in a report summarising the 70-plus objections it received.
11. The report confirms the Council’s engineers had no objection on highway grounds. It also confirms that only material planning considerations may be taken into account when deciding whether to approve a planning application.
12. Covenants are not material planning considerations, and the Council was correct in not considering these. Similarly, whether the applicant is a fit and proper company, is not a material planning consideration.
13. While residents have concerns about highway safety, the statutory consultee had no objections to the application. Without an objection, the Council could not refuse the application on highway grounds.
14. Mr X complains the Council did not liaise with residents. However, when dealing with planning applications, the Council is not required to do more for third parties than to advertise it and/or notify neighbours, receive, and consider comments on the application, and issue a decision. It is not required to engage in correspondence with residents.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. The Ombudsman’s role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters. The Planning Officer report, the Planning Approval Notice and the published minutes of the Committee meeting strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman