Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and approved a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• failed to follow the correct process when considering and approving a planning application
• failed to provide an evidence-based response
• failed to fully investigate his complaint; and
• failed to respond within its procedure deadline.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
6. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
7. The Council received a planning application for 250-plus homes and associated infrastructure for a site close to Mr X’s home.
8. The Planning Officer visited the site and prepared a report on the scheme. The purpose of the report is to facilitate the decision, and to show the decision was made properly after following the correct process. The report includes:
• relevant local and national planning policy
• notes confirming no objections were received from internal consultees
• comments from statutory consultees including the Highways Authority, water provider and coal authority; and
• a summary of the objections received.
9. The report also includes the professional opinion of the planning officer as to why the proposal overcomes the objections and the reasons why they are recommending approval.
10. The Council’s planning committee considered the application. Mr X spoke at the committee meeting objecting to the application. However, after considering the application, the committee voted to grant planning permission.
11. Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct process when considering and approving a planning application. However, it is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
12. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. It notes the application has been through numerous changes since first proposed and the applicant worked with officers to resolve concerns. The Officer decided the application broadly accords with the Council’s Local Plan and the National Planning Performance Framework and will secure homes on a site allocated for housing. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
13. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but, having regard to the planning documents and the case officer’s report, I consider that the decision-makers had enough information on which to reach a judgment. Given this, I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, and it is not for the Ombudsman to question the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
15. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if we investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman