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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the location of the proposal was changed without consulting residents and the development will have a significant impact on neighbouring properties.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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 before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the area and neighbouring properties and explained how the proposal addressed the reasons for refusing an application for a similar development at the site.
8. 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 the decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X says the Council did not notify residents about changes to the plans. However, the Council has explained why it did not consider it necessary to consult residents about changes to the development. Furthermore, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application. The Council still properly considered the acceptability of the development and therefore I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the changes to the plans and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman