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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Mrs X says the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with planning policy and the development is too large and high for the site. Mrs X says the new dwellings will have a significant impact on her property.

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 Mrs 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 the area and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mrs X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not have a materially harmful impact on neighbouring amenity. The planning committee members also visited the site and discussed the acceptability of the development before voting to grant planning permission.
7. Mrs X has raised concerns about the site’s ground levels and says the Council has told her the levels will be reduced, but she says the approved plans do not reflect this. Mrs X is also concerned about possible flood risks. However, concerns about flood risks were addressed in the case officer’s report. The planning permission was also subject to a condition requiring the developer to provide the Council with details of the existing and proposed site levels for approval before any works take place. The purpose of this condition was to minimise the impact of the development. If Mrs X believes the planning condition is not being complied with, she can report the possible breach to the Council’s enforcement department to investigate.
8. I understand Mrs X disagrees 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 Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman