Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. We are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not applied common sense to a neighbour’s planning application.
2. He said the decision should have gone to committee and he cannot appeal.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. The relevant planning application on the Council’s website.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council that it had granted planning permission for a garage for a neighbouring property. He said the decision should have gone to committee and building control should have been involved. Further the public portal was not easily accessible, and he could not appeal the decision.
9. In its response the Council said the planning permission was made under senior officer delegated powers and only more complex decisions went to committee. It said the decision was made using the Local Plan, relevant legislation and policies. It said Mr X made representations and these were part of the officer’s report. It gave advice about seeking legal advice if Mr X wanted to apply for Judicial Review.

Back to top

Analysis

10. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
11. The planning officer’s report shows how the Council considered the application and its consideration of the issues which were relevant to the planning process.
12. The report summarises the objections to the proposal including concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties. The planning officer determined it would not result in any harmful impact on neighbours, and this was a decision they were entitled to reach.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint we are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman