Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a development next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to adequately address their concerns when granting planning permission for a development next to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can 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 Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications for the site, available on the Council’s website.
• the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision on one of the previous applications.
• the report to the Planning Committee and the minutes of that meeting.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy the Council granted planning permission for the development.
6. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision, and so cannot evaluate the planning considerations or offer a view on what planning decision should have been made. Rather, our role is to review any alleged fault in the way the Council reached its decision, and to consider if any errors we find are Iikely to have influenced the planning application outcome.
7. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The objections submitted by interested parties are summarised in the Committee report. However, the volume of opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission.
• The Committee report goes on to consider the relevant planning policies and key material considerations. Officers were entitled to express their professional judgement on these issues, even if Mr X disagrees with them.
• Planning policies may pull in different directions. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
• The Committee was entitled to focus its consideration on whether the previous reasons for refusal/appeal dismissal had been addressed by the new proposal.
• When determining a planning application, Committee members must be satisfied there are material planning reasons for refusal. It was therefore not fault for the Chairman to remind Members what view a Planning Inspector may take if they refuse a proposal without sound planning reasons.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman