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 complainant has also not been caused any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to consider his comments and the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with the Council’s guidance. Mr X also says the Council did not properly publish public comments on its website and did not notify all affected residents about the development.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr 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 material planning considerations to decide if the development is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest and includes matters such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
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. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on parking, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unreasonable impact on the area or Mr X's property. The case officer also decided there would be sufficient parking for the development.
7. Mr X says the proposal does not comply with the Council’s Street Design Guide. While the design guide is a material planning consideration, a planning authority does not always need to strictly follow it on all applications and failing to comply with aspects of a planning policy and guidance is not necessarily fault. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has considered if the parking arrangements for the development are adequate.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their 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.
9. Mr X has also complained the Council did not notify all the affected residents about the application. But even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as he was aware of the application and had the opportunity to object. I also cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice because of any delays publishing comments on the Council’s website as the objections raised were still addressed in the case officer’s report before planning permission was granted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman