Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before deciding to grant planning permission. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council ignored objections to a planning application to convert a property near her home to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Planning law and guidance

5. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
6. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
7. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
8. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable, and reasonable in all other regards.

What happened

9. Ms X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for an extension.
10. The planning application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site
• a summary of the relevant planning history
• comments from neighbours and other consultees (including Ms X)
• relevant planning policy and guidance
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
11. The application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee. The Committee minutes show the application was debated before the Committee voted unanimously to approve the application.
12. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
13. Ms X complained about how development will impact her including:
• the impact on parking
• increase in crime
• increase in noise; and
• devaluation of property.
14. The case officer report refers to the objections received including those made by Ms X.
15. Before the Council made its decision, it considered the case officer’s report, the application plans, comments from the public, and relevant planning policy. The report covered the key planning considerations. The Council followed the decision-making process we would expect therefore it is unlikely an investigation will find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve the planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman