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. Mr X has complained on behalf of himself and other residents about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on their homes and the surrounding area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Mr X and the other residents have raised many concerns about the application. However, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area or a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The Council also explained further in response to Mr X’s complaint why it considered the development acceptable.
7. Mr X says the development is on significantly higher ground than his home which causes additional overlooking. The planning permission was subject to a condition which said the developer must submit details of the proposed site levels to the Council for approval. The Council has confirmed it was satisfied with the levels and the planning condition was therefore discharged. The Council has also visited the site to confirm the development is being carried out in line with the approved plans.
8. 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

9. 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