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 his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider the impact the development would have on 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))

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 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 not have a detrimental impact.
7. Mr X has complained about the Council’s planning committee and said his concerns about surface water were not considered. However, the committee considered the proposal and could have chosen to again defer the application to a later meeting if they believed additional information was needed. The planning permission was also subject to a condition requiring the developer to submit drainage details to the Council for approval.
8. 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.
9. Mr X has also complained about the conduct of a councillor. However, there is a separate process for complaints about the conduct of councillors. If Mr X believes the councillor breached the member’s code of conduct, he can complain to the Council’s Monitoring Officer and return to the Ombudsman if he remains unhappy once he receives their response.

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