Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. We have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before making its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development of the property next to her home. Specifically, she says the Council:
• refused to allow her to present a Shadow Projection Survey to the planning committee despite the committee asking questions about it;
• inconsistently interpreted planning policy; and
• was biased towards approving the application

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 Mrs 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. The application was presented by the Planning Committee. Mrs X’s local councillor is a Member of the Planning Committee. As he had discussed the application with Mrs X, he declared a personal interest, and, according to the procedures set out in the Council’s Code of Conduct, left the room, and did not take part in the debate. Having considered the proposal, the Committee granted permission.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council that her objection had been tailored on the basis that her local councillor would discuss information with the committee that she had shared with him. She believed this information would show the Committee the extent of the impact the development would have on her home. She did not realise the councillor would have to declare an interest and would not be able to stay and take part in the discussion/determination of the application.
9. The Council agreed to send the application back to the following Committee meeting.
10. The application was presented to the Planning Committee again. It was noted that no changes had been made to the application. Again, Mrs X spoke in objection to the application. The local councillor spoke in support of Mrs X’s objections.
11. Having reviewed the Planning Officer’s report and Committee minutes and the information available on the Council’s website, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, including Mrs X’s home, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report lays out relevant local and national policies. It includes a summary of the objections received and states why the Planning Officer considers the objections could not support a refusal of the application.
12. The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting show that Mrs X spoke in opposition to the development and that Members debated the application before deciding to approve it.
13. The minutes also state that the Committee Members were “aware of the presence of shadowing documents provided by the objector but confirmed that they were able to determine the application on the basis of the information before them and did not need to see the shadowing details.”
14. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and was also entitled not to consider the shadowing report commissioned by Mrs X. As stated, we are not an appeal body and cannot question the Council’s decision unless it was tainted by fault in the process..
15. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council failed to consider relevant material planning considerations. From the information I have seen it is unlikely I could find fault in the way the Council considered the application.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application before deciding to grant permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman