Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a grant of planning permission as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Complaints about the actions of individual councillors and such concerns are outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains for her clients Mr and Mrs Y. She says:
• the Council failed to include a condition requiring obscure glazing on the planning permission for their neighbour’s garage; and
• she also complains about the actions of district and town councillors.
2. Mr & Mrs Y want the Council to revoke the planning permission or pay them compensation for the harm caused to their amenity and the street scene.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 deciding a planning application.
7. We can look at the Council’s decision-making process, but we can’t say if decision is right/wrong. The Council should take account of law, policy, relevant evidence, and information. If it has followed those steps we cannot find fault.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, highway safety and parking, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. The case officer also consulted the Local Highway Authority (LHA), and no objections were raised.
9. Ms X says the town councillor advised Mr & Mrs Y that the case would be referred to the planning committee for a decision. However, the planning officer asked the ward councillors if they wanted the case referred to the planning committee. The Councillors confirmed they did not. According to the Council’s procedures the application was decided by officers under its scheme of delegation.
10. I understand Mr & Mrs Y are unhappy with the actions of the councillors. However, complaints about a councillor’s conduct must be made to the Council’s Monitoring Officer for consideration under its standards arrangements. If, once the standards procedure is concluded Mr & Mrs X remain dissatisfied they can complain to the Ombudsman. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council's decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to grant planning permission. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman