Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for changes to parking facilities and traffic flow at a site close to the complainant’s home. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. Nor can we require the Council to revoke the planning permission.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approved a planning application to change the parking arrangements and traffic flow at a site close to his home.
2. He wants all or part of the planning permission revoked and the traffic flow on the site reversed.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When a local planning 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.
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. In this case it is clear from the planning officer’s report that the highways team were consulted and, subject to conditions had no objection to the proposals.
9. From the information I have seen I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the objections received noting the highways team had no objections.
10. The planning officer recommended approving the application. A senior officer agreed and granted planning permission under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
11. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate ’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke all or part of the planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman