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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the planning decision was based on inaccurate information and the approved plans lacked detail. Mr X says the proposal is similar to previous schemes for the site that were refused, and the development will have a significant impact on the character of the area.

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 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 parking and explained how the proposed development addressed the reasons for refusing the previous applications for the site.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about the approved plans and says details about the development were not included in the application. However, the Council has explained why the development will be acceptable and the case officer could have requested further information if they considered the plans lacked detail. Planning conditions were also imposed requiring the developer to provide additional information about certain elements of the development to the Council for approval.
9. Mr X says the Council ignored the highway officer’s comments. However, the case officer’s report acknowledged the concerns raised by the highway officer and explained the proposal would not comply with some aspects of its guidance. While planning policy and guidance are material planning considerations, councils do not need to strictly follow these on all applications. I am satisfied the Council has explained why the development will still be acceptable.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman