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 by the Council and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application to change the use of a building next to her home. Ms X says the Council failed to consider the objections raised by residents and the application contained inconsistent information. Ms X has also complained the application was not referred to the planning committee for determination and says the Council has withheld information related to the proposal. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on the area.

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 Ms 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, highway safety and parking, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. The officer also consulted the local highway authority and the police before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The highway authority did initially raise some concerns and recommended the developer provide amended plans. However, the case officer explained in the report why this was not necessary.
7. Ms X says the applicant provided conflicting information regarding the intended occupants for the property. But the background of the residents that will live in the property is not a material planning matter. Ms X says the application should have been determined by the planning committee and the Council did not upload all the comments it received from residents on its website. The Council has accepted there was a delay uploading comments and an email it sent to Ms X provided misleading information about the planning committee. However, I do not consider Ms X has been caused any significant injustice because of these issues. Comments from residents were summarised and addressed in the case officer’s report. The Council’s decision not to refer the application to the planning committee was also in line with its constitution.
8. 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.
9. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman