Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a development near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council failed to follow or take account of law, policy, and established procedures when determining a planning application for a development near their 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 X.
• 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 and update to the Planning Committee, and the minutes of that meeting.
• the planning policies referred to by X in their complaint.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate 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 we 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 procedural 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 handled the application or reached its decision to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• Government guidance encourages Councils to work with applicants in a positive and proactive way. In that regard, planning law allows for extensions of time for determining applications to be agreed between the Council and applicant.
• The Committee report summarises the objections received on the proposal, and X presented their objections at the Planning Committee meeting.
• The Committee report sets out the responses from consultees (including the Ecology Consultant, Highways, Tree Officer, Drainage Officer, and Environmental Protection Officer) and provides an assessment of the relevant material planning considerations (including under the headings: Design and Character, Residential Amenity, Highways and Parking, Trees, Ecological Implications, Drainage, and Accessibility). The consultees and planning officer were entitled to reach their own professional judgement on these matters and the information submitted with the application, even if X disagrees with their views.
• It fell to the Committee members to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining the planning application. It was not fault for the Committee to have focussed 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.
• Conditions were imposed on the planning permission requiring:

• The submission of an ecological mitigation plan, biodiversity enhancement layout, and a lighting design scheme for biodiversity
• A percentage of the units to meet accessibility and adaptability standards.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling or determination of the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman