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 as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and its decision to grant planning permission does not comply with planning policies. Mr X says the site is not appropriate for the development and the proposal will have a significant impact on biodiversity. Mr X says the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination.

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 before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The case officer considered the impact on the area and biodiversity at the site before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The officer also consulted the Council’s biodiversity team, and a sum was agreed with the applicant for biodiversity off-setting.
8. 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.
9. Mr X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and the site notice was not put up in an appropriate location. Mr X also says the application should have been referred to the planning committee for determination. However, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the acceptability of the development was properly considered and therefore it is likely the planning decision would be the same had the application been referred to the committee or if additional residents were notified about the application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman