Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application for a development near his home. He says the Council took too long to determine the application and did not properly consider the impact the development would have.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting retrospective planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns in detail. However, the officer decided the development would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The case officer also considered the noise from the site, the impact on protected species and contacted the necessary statutory consultees for their comments before deciding the application was acceptable.
7. I understand Mr 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.
8. Mr X has also complained about how long it took the Council to determine the application. But I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays. Mr X was not the applicant, and the Council ultimately decided the development was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any delays determining the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman