Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Dr B has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Dr B says the decision to grant planning permission was based on incorrect information and the impact of the development was not properly considered.

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, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Dr B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 determining a planning application.
6. In this case, the Council received a planning application from Dr B’s neighbour. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission. The development was not built in line with the approved plans as it was constructed in a different location. A retrospective application was therefore made for the development built. It is not unusual for retrospective applications to be made to regularise a development and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach.
7. Dr B has complained about the impact the development will have and says the Council failed to properly consider this. However, the case officer visited the site and addressed the material issues in their report, including the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the concerns raised by residents. The officer decided the development was acceptable and would not unduly impact the AONB.
8. Dr B raised concerns about the proposed colour for the development and the Council’s decision to apply a planning condition to ensure the building was painted within a specified time. Dr B says this contradicts the comments from the officer regarding the acceptability of the building design. However, the concerns about the colour of the development were addressed in the case officer’s report. It is also not unusual for councils to apply conditions to planning permission.
9. Dr B says the Council delayed determining the application so the applicant could provide more information. However, it is not uncommon for changes to be made to a development and for further information to be provided during the course of an application. I also do not consider Dr B suffered any significant injustice because of any delays by the Council determining the application.
10. I understand Dr B disagrees with the planning decision. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development 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 would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman