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 has dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct processes and did not properly consider the acceptability of the application. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided any harm caused by the proposal would be limited and not significant enough to warrant the refusal of the application.
8. Mr X says the planning decision was based on poor quality plans and the case officer’s report lacked detail. He also says the case officer did not visit his property to fully assess the application. However, the Council has explained why it was satisfied with the information submitted with the application and it could have requested additional information if it considered it necessary. Case officer’s reports do not need to include every issue considered and I am satisfied the officer addressed the material matters and explained why they considered the proposal acceptable. There was also no requirement for the officer to visit neighbouring properties and applications can often be assessed from the development site. The Council has accepted that one of the plans was not available on its website due to an error. However, this document is now available and therefore I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard.
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.
10. Mr X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application. However, even if the Council failed to publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X suffered any significant injustice as he was still aware of the application and commented on the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman