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 residential development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider the concerns he raised about the application and the development will increase the flood risk to his property.

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))
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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, the Council granted outline planning permission for a residential development near Mr X’s home. The outline application established the principle of the development. The developer made a reserved matters application in respect of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development.
9. Mr X objected to both applications and raised concerns about surface water drainage and the potential flooding issues the development may cause. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised. The Council also consulted the Lead Local Flood Authority about the proposal, and it said the development did not pose a significant flood risk.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant permission for the development. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment 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 applications, 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