Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s approval of a development near his home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for a development near his home before granting approval. In particular, that:
• it failed to properly consider its own policies in relation to building on green spaces and the impact on the natural environment, and failed to properly consult with local residents in relation to the loss of green space;
• it failed to consider the impact on his amenity, including the impact on his privacy and access to light, and that the boundary would be close to his fence, preventing access to repair and maintain it;
• two councillors voting on the planning committee had a conflict of interests.

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, the Council’s complaint responses and information available on the Council’s planning portal.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decision made by the Council is correct. Unless we find fault with the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
6. The developer made an application to build houses on green space near where Mr X lives. The Council wrote to neighbours adjoining the development site and posted planning notices. This was in line with the publicity rules for planning applications.
7. The officer’s report for the planning committee shows how they considered objections from residents and information from bodies consulted. This included, but was not limited to, consideration of the fine balance between the need to maintain green spaces and the need to provide housing for local people; and consideration of the impact of the loss of trees and wildlife from the green space.
8. In relation to the potential loss of privacy and light to neighbouring residents, the officer noted that the proposed rear elevations of the new houses would be 18 to 20 metres from habitable rooms in existing dwellings. However, land levels were relatively flat, and the proposed boundary fencing would mean there was no undue overlooking on existing residents. They concluded that, overall, the impact on the neighbours’ residential amenity would be limited.
9. At the planning committee, two councillors declared an interest because they acted as non-executive directors of a company connected to the developer. It was noted they had no pecuniary interest, were not involved in any way with the planning application and had never previously indicated any support for it. The potential conflict of interest was discussed by the committee and advice was sought from the committee solicitor, who confirmed there was no conflict of interests. The Council’s complaint response noted this discussion was not recorded in the minutes, which would be good practice, and said the Council would review its practice around this.
10. The records show the Council considered all relevant factors when deciding whether to approve the application. It was for Council officers and planning committee members to decide how much weight to give the various evidence and how to resolve potential conflicts between its policies. The application was discussed by the planning committee and the process allowed objectors to set out their views in the meeting. Advice was sought on the potential conflict of interest. The Council has therefore taken the approach we would expect.
11. In addition, the Council responded to the various concerns Mr X raised in the complaints process at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process.
12. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman