Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the application should have been determined by the Council’s planning committee. He has also raised concerns about communication between the Council and the planning applicant’s agent. Mr X says the development will be overbearing and impact his privacy and visual amenity.

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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
7. In this case, Mr X says the application should have been determined by the Council’s planning committee. He says the application was called in to the committee by a councillor, but this request was refused by the Council as it said the deadline for referral to the committee had passed. Mr X disputes this, but even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the development would not cause harm to neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, outlook and privacy. The case officer also decided the design of the proposal was acceptable and there would not be an overbearing impact. The Council further explained why it considered the proposal acceptable in response to Mr X’s complaint and why additional planning conditions were not necessary. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
9. We can never know if the committee would have granted or refused the application. But as the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it more likely than not the planning decision would have been the same had the application been referred to the planning committee for determination.
10. Mr X has also raised concerns about correspondence between the Council and the applicant’s planning agent. However, it is not unusual for there to be discussions between the case officer and applicant during the application process. Furthermore, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice because of any communication between the parties.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman