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 has dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. He says the Council did not follow the proper processes and procedures and the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with planning policy and guidance. 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. (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 less than significant harm to the setting of heritage assets would not outweigh the benefit of the development. The officer also said the proposal would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. The acceptability of the development was also discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
8. Mr X says the development will impact the conservation area and cause loss of views from an existing public right of way. He has also raised concerns about highway safety and says the development will be overbearing and out of character with the area. However, the case officer’s report considered the impact on the area and the potential loss of principle views before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The Local Highway Authority was consulted and did not object to the proposal. Planning committee members also visited the site and so could assess the potential impact before approving the application.
9. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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