Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council granted planning permission for a shed on an allotment site on land behind the complainant’s home. And its alleged failure to consider the Equality Act. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has dismissed inaccuracies, discrepancies and concerns on a planning application. She is not satisfied with how it conducted the planning process. Ms X also says the Council has not followed the Equality Act.

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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils must decide planning applications in line with their local plan policies unless other material planning considerations show they should not.
6. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private matters.
7. General planning policies may pull in different directions. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.

8. Council planning officers will usually prepare a report assessing development proposals against relevant policies and other material planning considerations. Having considered and balanced the planning issues, the report will end with an officer recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
9. The courts made it clear that officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well experienced of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key material issues.
10. Councils will grant permission where they consider proposals are in line with relevant planning policies and they find no planning reasons of sufficient weight to justify refusal.
11. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of an application for a shed on an allotment site. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s material planning objections. However, the officer decided the proposal meets local and national planning policies and supplementary planning guidance.
12. Ms X says the shed will have an unacceptable impact on her home. But the Council has explained why it considers the proposal acceptable.
13. I understand Ms 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.
14. Ms X also states the Council has failed to follow the Equality Act. However, I have seen no evidence that the Council failed to have regard to its public sector equality duty.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman