Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainants have not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of himself and other residents about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near their homes. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on neighbouring properties and the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination.

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. Most planning applications are determined by officers using their delegated authority. However, in certain circumstances applications may be referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination.
7. In this case, Mr X has complained the application was determined by a planning officer instead of the committee. The Council has accepted the application should have been referred to the committee for determination. However, I cannot say Mr X and the other complainants have suffered significant injustice as a result. While I cannot know for certain what would have happened had the application been referred to the committee as it should have, I consider it more likely than not the planning decision would have been the same.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed their concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy and would not be overbearing.
9. Mr X says the development does not comply with a restrictive covenant. However, any covenants that apply to the site were not a material planning consideration.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman