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, I shall call Mr X, is represented by his solicitor, I shall call Miss Y.
2. Miss Y complains the Council failed to apply the correct policy considerations to a retrospective planning application for a traveller site next to Mr X’s home. She says the Council failed to consider appropriate material considerations and failed to impose appropriate planning conditions to try to mitigate the impacts. It also failed to require a traffic assessment to be carried out to ensure safe access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the retrospective development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, 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.
9. The application was presented to the Planning Committee, members of which had visited the site.
10. The application specifically states:
• there is no overlooking because of very high hedging
• there is no unacceptable overbearing impact
• there is no loss of light; and
• the Highway Authority considered the impact on the access and junction and did not require a traffic assessment
11. The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting show that two members of the public spoke in opposition to the development and that Members debated the application before deciding to approve the application.
12. I understand Mr 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 the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
13. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council failed to consider relevant material planning considerations. It applied conditions but correctly stated that conditions are not appropriate when issues can be controlled by other means such as environmental health powers.
14. 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

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’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