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 about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. He says the development will have a significant impact on his property and an application for a similar development in the area was refused due to the impact it will have on residents.

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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Outline planning permission establishes the acceptability of development, subject to latter agreement to details of ‘reserved matters’. Reserved matters may be any or all of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting outline planning permission for the development. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the principle of the development would be acceptable. The acceptability of the proposed development was also considered by the Council’s planning committee.
7. The Council has also approved the reserved matters application. The case officer again considered the impact the proposal would have on Mr X’s home, but decided the development had adequate regard to the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The Council has also explained further in response to Mr X’s complaint why it considers the proposed screening between Mr X’s home and the development site appropriate.
8. Mr X says he has suffered significant disturbance since the building work started. He also says the Council refused permission for a similar development in the area. But each planning application will be considered on its own merits. While there may be some disturbance during building work, the developer is required to comply with the approved construction management plan. The Council’s planning and environmental health officers have looked into Mr X’s concerns and the developer has taken steps to limit dust coming from the site. Mr X has also been asked by the Council’s environmental health officers to provide additional information so it can further consider his concerns about disturbance from the site.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant permission for the development. 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