Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of planning and Listed Building consent applications. 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 to suggest fault in how the Council considered the applications is likely to have affected the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s consideration of his neighbour’s planning and listed building consent applications. In particular, Mr X says:
• The Council ignored the heritage statement he submitted;
• A proposed rooflight which he had repeatedly objected to, was not discussed at all, nor a photograph shown, at the Planning Committee meeting;
• The proposal was contrary to planning policies;
• The Council gave undue weight to representations made the applicant that Mr X’s own Listed Building is underpinned, without providing any evidence to support this claim.

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 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.

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

3. When assessing complaints about planning decisions, we consider whether there was procedural fault in the way the planning authority made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the outcome. If there is evidence of fault, we consider whether this is likely to have affected the planning decision. If the outcome is likely to have been the same but for any fault, we are unlikely to investigate the complaint, because the fault is not deemed to have caused the complainant an injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission and Listed Building consent for this development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against those decisions. Rather, we consider if there is evidence of procedural fault in the way they were made. And even if there is evidence of some fault, we may still decide not to investigate the complaint if the fault is unlikely to have affected the decisions.
7. I find there is insufficient evidence that any fault in the decision-making process has affected the decision on these applications, so the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• Some Members of the Planning Committee visited the application site, so would have been aware of the character and appearance of the buildings and surrounding area.
• Mr X’s representative was able to present his concerns about the applications at the Planning Committee meeting.
• The document pack supplied to the Planning Committee included the proposed plans and elevations, which show the rooflight Mr X is concerned about, and it also included a photograph of the existing roofslope where the rooflight would be located. Mr X’s objections to this element are also summarised in the report to the Committee, and in the update sheet. The report then goes on to assess the impact of this part of the development on Mr X’s residential amenity.
• The Committee report, and the update sheet, summarise Mr X’s concerns about the risk to the structural integrity of his Listed Building. The report then considers the conclusions of the structural engineer reports submitted by the applicant and Mr X.
• The Committee report, and the update sheet, refer to Mr X’s concerns about the impact on heritage assets and to a heritage statement prepared for Mr X to support his objections. I understand Mr X also circulated this statement to Committee Members before the meeting. The main section of the Committee report goes on to assess the heritage aspects of the proposal.
• The Planning Committee was therefore aware of Mr X’s concerns about the development. It was then for the Committee, as the decision maker, to decide the weight to be given to the relevant planning policies and material planning considerations when determining the applications. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s judgement on those issues just because the complainant might hold a contrary view.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence to

suggest that fault by the Council has affected the outcome of the applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman