Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. Further investigation into why the complainant did not receive a letter about a planning application is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Also, we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, says the Council failed to consult neighbours before granting planning permission for a new property in the road where she lives.
2. She says she is disappointed in the Council’s planning decisions. And the Council has slighted her character by hinting she has not told the truth about not being informed of the planning application.
3. Mrs X wants the planning permission withdrawn and the application resubmitted so people may comment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complains she and several neighbours were not consulted about a planning application for a new house where they live. She says the Post Office told her that multiple letters would not be mislaid.
8. The Council says its records show it produced letters to thirteen residents, including Mrs X, as well as notification to statutory consultees. However, it cannot confirm whether the print room dispatched the letters to the Royal Mail, or why they were not received.
9. When considering complaints, where there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
10. I cannot know why Mrs X and her neighbours did not receive the Council’s letter. However, in response to the complaint, the Council says its records show it sent the letters. The Council is not required to provide proof of postage. I consider that further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
11. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
12. 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.
13. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. It describes the proposal and planning history on the site.
14. Having laid out their assessment of the scheme the officer concluded the proposals:

“…are of an appropriate layout, design, massing, scale and appearance when viewed in the context of the existing site characteristics and the surrounding proposals.”

15. The Planning Officer also considered the impact of the proposed scheme on neighbouring properties. They decided the development would be compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. The application was approved under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
16. It is the Council’s role, as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable. This is after consideration of local and national planning policies, comments from statutory consultees and any objections or representations it may have received from people affected by the decision.
17. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case, although there were no objections and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• Further investigation as to why Mrs X and her neighbours did not receive the planning notifications is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
• We have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
• We cannot require the Council to revoke the planning application, therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman