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. Miss X has complained on behalf of herself and Mr Y about how the Council dealt with their neighbour’s planning application. Miss X believes the development will be unlawful and says the application was not properly assessed in line with the Council’s policy. Miss X says the application will have a significant impact on their property and the matter has caused Mr Y considerable distress.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss 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. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Miss X’s and Mr Y’s home and the character of the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Miss X’s and Mr Y’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity.
7. Miss X has also raised concerns about the planning committee meeting. She says the application was contentious and some members referred to issues not included as part of the application. Miss X believes members predetermined the application and did not attend the meeting with an open mind. However, the committee chair made it clear to members what the application being considered included. Members asked questions and discussed the acceptability of the proposal before voting to grant planning permission.
8. I understand Miss X and Mr Y disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But 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

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s and Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman