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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development in the area where he lives. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on inaccurate and misleading information and resident’s concerns were not properly considered.

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 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 highway safety, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections, including the issues raised by Mr X, and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the highway or cause parking issues. The issues were also considered by the planning committee before member’s voted to grant planning permission.
7. Mr X says the application form contained untrue information and the application should have therefore been invalid. But it is for the Council to decide if it has sufficient information to validate an application. The Council has also explained why the issues raised by Mr X about the applicant would not be material planning matters.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s assessment of highway safety issues and says the planning committee were misled in this regard. However, the Council has explained how it considered this matter and members could have deferred the decision to a later date had they believed further information was necessary. Furthermore, even if I did consider the Council at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council has explained that its decision to grant planning permission would be the same had the accidents Mr X referred to in his complaint been included in the officer’s report.
9. I understand Mr 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.
10. Mr X has also complained about how the Council publicised the application. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any personal injustice as he was aware of the application and objected to the proposal.
11. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman