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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider his objections or the Planning Inspector’s decision in relation to a previously refused application for the site. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with planning policies and the development will have a significant impact on his property and the surrounding area.

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 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. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on residential amenity and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided there would not be an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.
8. Mr X disagrees and says an application for a similar development at the site was refused and the Council should have declined to determine the amended application. But the case officer’s report does refer to the previous application for the site and explains why the reasons for refusing the initial application were overcome. The Council also considered if it should use its powers under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act to decline to determine the application.
9. 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 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman