Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a site close to Miss X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, nor can we achieve the outcome she is seeking.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council misled the planning committee, which caused it to make an unsafe decision to approve a planning application.
2. Miss X wants the Council to:
• revoke the planning permission,
• rehear the application at a public hearing, and
• impose restrictions on the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2020, the Planning Inspector allowed an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse outline planning permission for up to 32 homes on a site behind Miss X’s property. This granted planning permission and established the principle of developing the land as acceptable.
7. In 2024, the developer put in a reserved matters application for the development. The application was restricted to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development, and the discharge of conditions on the outline permission.
8. The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. This included the relevant national and local planning policy and a summary of the objections received. It also included the officer’s explanation of why they considered the proposal outweighs the objections and is acceptable.
9. The report was considered by the Council’s planning committee. The minutes of the meeting show the report was presented by the officer. Objectors addressed the committee, including Miss X. The application was then discussed by the committee, who asked questions of the officers before it decided to vote to approve the application subject to completion of a section 106 legal agreement.
10. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide whether or not to approve an application. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
11. Miss X says:
• The presentation was superficial and one sided.
• The meeting lacked probity.
• The Committee Chair told members the developer would appeal should they defer making a decision and the application would be agreed on appeal.
12. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. It is appropriate for the officer to explain why they support the application.
13. The planning committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Miss X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application before deciding to grant permission. In addition, we cannot require the Council to revoke a planning application or impose retrospective conditions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman