Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application and made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, says the Council:
• failed to apply policies correctly or prioritise public safety
• needlessly removed established public safety controls
• ignored resident's safety concerns; and
• is placing pedestrians at increased risk of harm on multiple fronts.

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 the information
• provided by Miss X and the Council; and
• available on the Council’s website
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though a complainant may disagree with it.
9. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve a planning application to demolish a neighbouring bungalow and build three houses.
10. She submitted objections to the proposal including:
• Highway safety concerns
• Noise/bad working practices by same company building another nearby development
• New access onto an “A” road has been considered unsuitable for fifty years
11. The objections are summarised in the case officer report on the proposal.
12. Highways officers considered the proposal and had no objections subject to conditions.
13. The Case Officer report lays out the proposal, the objections, relevant local and national policies.
14. The Officer concluded:
• appearance, size, shape of plots are comparable with local area
• there will be no significant impact on neighbour amenity
• the noise mitigation measure is acceptable to address concerns about the amenity of future occupiers.
• proposed rear gardens acceptable size accord with policy.
15. The highway engineers commented on the proposal and sought increased splays. Minor amendments were required to make the plans suitable for an agreement to alter to the public highway.
16. They are satisfied with parking spaces and consider there is space to turn and exit the site in forward gear even if both parking spaces.
17. The Case Officer concluded the proposal was acceptable and a senior officer agreed. Planning permission was granted under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
18. It is for planning officers and/or 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.
19. Ms X says the Council has failed to apply policies or prioritise public safety and is placing pedestrians at increased risk of harm.
20. However, the Case Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case, the objections received and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer decided the proposal is satisfactory for highway safety. And accords with local and national planning policy. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to warrant our consideration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman