Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with two planning applications in the area where he lives. Mr X says his objections were not properly dealt with by the Council and the planning committee members were not aware of his concerns about the developments before voting to grant planning permission.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. 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 proposals, including the impact on the area and visual amenity, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s reports summarised the objections received from residents, including Mr X, and addressed the material planning issues raised. However, the officer decided the proposals would not have a detrimental impact. The acceptability of the applications was also considered during the planning committee meeting before members voted to approve the applications.
8. Mr X says the Council did not respond to the comments he made about the applications. However, I would not expect the Council to reply to every comment it receives in response to a planning application. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and the notification letters sent to residents also confirm the case officer will not respond to comments made about an application. Mr X says the Council did not make all his objections available to committee members. However, even if the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as the material planning issues he raised were summarised in the case officer’s reports for the planning committee.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the applications. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the applications were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question these decisions unless they were tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, 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 and Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman