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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact the development would have, and it did not address the concerns he raised about the proposal. Mr X has also complained about what happened during the planning committee meeting.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We 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 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. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised. However, the officer decided the proposal would not cause overlooking or overshadowing and would not be overbearing. The Council’s tree officer was also consulted, and they did not object to the proposal. The acceptability of the development was discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
8. Mr X says the case officer and committee members should have visited his property to fully assess the application. He also says committee members did not ask him any questions during the meeting. However, there is no requirement for officers and members to visit neighbouring properties when considering an application and the proposal can often be assessed from the development site. There was also no requirement for members to ask speakers at the meeting questions. Mr X did speak at the meeting so had the opportunity to raise his concerns. His objections were also published on the Council’s website and summarised in the case officer’s report. Therefore, members were aware of the issues raised and could have chosen to defer the application to a later meeting if they believed additional information was needed to determine the application.
9. Mr X is unhappy the Council refused his request to extend the deadline to comment on the application. But I cannot say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result as he was able to comment on the proposal before the application was determined.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman