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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with an application to change the use of a property near his home. Mr X says the correct processes were not followed and residents were not properly consulted about the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on the area.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, parking for the site and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the proposal would be acceptable. The application was also discussed during the planning board meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
7. 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.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about how the Council dealt with resident’s objections and says there were problems with the Council’s planning portal. Mr X says there were issues submitting a petition to the Council and he is concerned that the case officer’s report did not accurately record the number of objections received. Mr X has also complained residents were not given the same opportunity as the applicant to speak during the planning board meeting. However, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. He was able to comment on the application and speak during the planning committee meeting, so members were aware of his objections before voting to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman