Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr W complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. He says the development impacts his privacy and is out of keeping with the area. And its planning committee should have decided rather than an officer.

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))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils must decide planning applications in line with their development plan unless material considerations suggest otherwise. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration.
7. 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.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr W’s objections and relevant policy. The case officer acknowledged the development would not comply with the Council’s guidance but explained why the development was still acceptable.
9. I understand Mr W disagrees with the Council’s decision. But the Council was entitled to exercise its professional judgement. There is not enough evidence of fault.
10. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The Council’s decision to not refer the application to its Planning Committee was in line with its constitution.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr W’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman