Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before granting planning permission. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council considered her neighbour’s planning application before granting planning permission.

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.

(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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission is necessary for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA). Or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
6. All decisions on planning applications must be made according to the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in deciding applications.
7. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, reduction in the value of a property or the ability to carry out property maintenance. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
9. Councils have a statutory duty to publicise applications and to consider representations (either for or against the application) which people make. But that is not the same as consulting with the public.
10. The Council received an application from Mrs X’s neighbour to extend their home. The Council publicised the application and Mrs X objected.
11. The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. They considered:
• the applicant’s plans
• Mrs X’s objections
• site photograph and location plans which show Mrs X’s property adjoining the application site; and
• local and nation planning policy
12. The Ombudsman looks at procedural fault in how the Council came to its decision, we do not consider planning appeals. We cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision makers, without evidence of procedural fault.
13. The planning officer’s report provides an assessment of the proposal. From the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council followed the proper process before deciding to approve the planning application under its scheme of delegation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman