Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for new school buildings close to the complainant’s home. The is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, says the Council:
• Failed to involve residents in a consultation on a planning application
• Ignored resident’s objections
• Built a school in an inappropriate location; and
• Allowed developers to invade their privacy.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. All decisions on planning applications must be made according to the authority’s development plan unless material considerations show otherwise.
7. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest. They do not include private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
9. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g. in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
10. The Council applied for planning permission to build new college buildings replacing those on a site close to Mrs X’s home.
11. The Council notified residents. Mrs X says they did not receive an invitation to an online meeting about the proposed development. The Council says letters were sent to all residents whose gardens back on to the development site. It does not know why Mrs X did not receive a letter.
12. The Planning Officer’s report show the Council received seventy comments from the public, including Mrs X. It explained the Officer’s view that the proposal overcame the objections. It acknowledges the new buildings will have an impact on neighbouring properties. However, the impact is not considered unacceptable. The report says:

“In conclusion, the limited size of the site, the proximity of surrounding residential development, and the need to maintain the existing education facility whilst building works proceed, dictate the proposed location of the new building. The scale and form of building, produced in response to the site constraints, is appropriate in its context. The proposal would include sustainability features and outdoor sport and learning spaces. Overall, the scale, design and finish of the development is considered to be acceptable with regard to impacts on visual amenity.”

13. It is clear from the planning officer’s report the Council considered the impact of the new buildings on neighbours. The objections were also considered, including those made by Mrs X.
14. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
15. Mrs X also complains about the dust created during the construction process and the erection of a crane on-site which they say invades their privacy. However, problems arising from the construction period of works such as noise, dust or movement of construction vehicles are not material considerations which the Council, as local planning authority, can consider.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies, comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
17. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case. As Mrs X commented on the application, I do not consider the outcome of the application would have changed had she attended the online meeting.
18. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault if we investigated the Council’s processing of the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman