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. Ms X has complained on behalf of herself and other residents about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Ms X says the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with the Council’s policy and the development will have a significant impact on neighbouring properties. Ms X says the case officer misled planning committee members and resident’s objections were not properly considered.

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.

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. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and parking issues, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the proposal would be acceptable. The acceptability of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members resolved to grant planning permission.
8. Ms X says resident’s concerns were not properly considered. But the objections were summarised in the case officer’s report. Ms X also spoke during the planning committee meeting, so members were aware of the issues raised. Ms X says the development does not comply with the Council’s planning policies. While planning policy and guidance will be a material planning consideration, the Council does not need to strictly follow it on all applications and failing to comply with all aspects of policy will not necessarily be fault or mean that a proposal is unacceptable. In this case, I am satisfied the case officer’s report makes it clear the development does not comply with the Council’s policy in terms of the proposed building heights and parking arrangements. However, the report explains why the development will still be acceptable.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s 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. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman