Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for new houses close to his home. He wants:
• a formal apology from the Council for failing to follow the correct planning process; and
• further consideration of more screening for his garden.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains that:
• The Council failed to adequately consider the Urban Design Team's objection to the proposed layout of the development.
• The applicant provided further revised plans days before the Planning Committee met to decide upon the application. These changes came without any clarification or explanation; and
• The planning Update Sheet showing a difference between the ground floor plan of Unit 5 and side elevations shown in the drawing were only provided to him at the Planning Committee.
6. The information provided by the Council and on the Council’s website shows:
• The Council publicised the planning application.
• Mr X made several objections.
• Planning Committee Members visited the application site and Mr X’s home
• The applicant put in amended plans for the proposed property closest to Mr X’s home.
• The plans and new details were presented to the Planning Committee on an update sheet.
• Mr X spoke at the Committee meeting; and
• The Committee debated the application before deciding to approve the application.
7. The information on the planning pages of the Council’s website shows the Urban Design Officer did not support the original plans. They suggested some changes which should be implemented or rebutted before the Committee made a decision.
8. The applicant accepted some of the recommendations and their agent provided a detailed rebuttal of the remainder of the Urban Design Officer’s recommendations. This included confirmation that some of the suggested changes did not conform to the Council’s published planning policy.
9. The Planning Officer’s report to the Committee contains specific references and consideration of the impact of the proposed development on Mr X’s home. It shows several changes were made to the application to accommodate his concerns.
10. The discrepancy in the plans referred to in paragraph five refers to a window in the property closest to Mr X’s home. This window was not shown in previous plans. However, given the window is on the ground floor and will have obscure glazing the Council considered this did not required additional publicity.
11. Mr X says the Council failed to adequately consider the Urban Design Team's objection to the proposed layout of the development. The applicant accepted some changes and rebutted the remaining suggestions. This satisfied the Urban Design Officer’s response to the Council’s consultation.
12. He also says the applicant provided revised plans days before the Planning Committee met without explanation. The applicant is not required to give reasons for making changes to third parties.
13. The Council considered the discrepancy between the plan of the nearest plot to his home and the drawing considered by the Committee were minimal and did not require further consultation. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman