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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says the Council did not properly consider resident’s objections or the impact the development would have on neighbouring properties. Ms X says the development is too high and large for the area and significantly impacts her home.

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))
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 Ms 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. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before granting permission for the development. The case officer’s report considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and nearby residential properties. Resident’s objections were also summarised and addressed in the case officer’s report. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact. The acceptability of the proposal was also considered by the planning committee, and members visited the site before voting to approve the application.
8. Ms X says the Council failed to consider alternative materials that could have been used to reduce the impact of the building. She also says markers should have been used during the site visit to show members the proposed height of the building. However, the Council only needs to consider the acceptability of the application it receives. Members also could have requested additional information if they were not satisfied they had enough to determine the application.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant permission for the development. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman