Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council cause the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says there are a number of irregularities in the way the Council handled and determined a planning application for two dwellings near his home. In summary, Mr X says:
• Fraudulent documents and misrepresentations submitted by the applicant were taken into account by the Council when it determined the application.
• The applicant was not required to submit a tree and hedgerow report, contrary to the requirements of the Council’s Local Plan and validation checklist.
• The Council should have reconsulted on amendments to the proposed development.
2. Mr X says he has lost faith in the planning process. He also says the development would detrimentally affect the use of the single carriageway lane on which he resides, and would result in the loss of vegetation and wildlife which contribute to his enjoyment of the area.

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 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

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

4. So, when we assess the complaint about a planning application, we will consider whether any fault in the processing and determination of the application is likely to have affected the planning outcome, and also whether the development itself will have a significant impact on the complainant.
5. And we cannot question whether an organisation’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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s planning portal.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Mr X has concerns about the Council’s handling and determination of this planning application. However, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the complaint further. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• Mr X lives approximately 40m away from the development site, so I am not persuaded the two, single-storey buildings in themselves would directly impact on his residential amenity.
• Any irregularities with the ownership certificate originally submitted by the applicant did not prevent Mr X from commenting on the proposal, and I understand the situation was corrected during the determination of the application.
• Mr X’s representations are summarised in the case officer’s report, so the Council was aware of them when reaching its decision.
• Although the Council did not request a tree/hedgerow report from the applicant, the case officer’s report does consider the impact of the proposal on existing vegetation. Conditions have also been imposed requiring the retention of an existing hedgerow, and the submission of further landscaping details. And whilst Mr X might take enjoyment from the vegetation and associated wildlife within the application site, I do not find any loss of these causes him an injustice that would justify our continued involvement in the matter.
• The highways authority was consulted on the proposal, and the case officer’s report considers its comments in conjunction with the access/parking layout shown on the plan submitted in October 2021. The Council was satisfied the proposed access driveway did not unacceptably impact on the parking and turning provision within the adjoining site, so highway safety would not be harmed. This was a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach.
• Even if the Council had reconsulted on the amended plans and information submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied this is unlikely to have resulted in an alternative planning outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman