Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and an application for listed building consent. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s applications for planning permission and listed building consent. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the development.

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, including the impact on neighbouring properties, the surrounding area and protected species, before granting planning permission and listed building consent. The case officer’s reports referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have a harmful impact.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about the safety of the development and says the solution he proposed to address the issues with the development were ignored. Mr X also says the Council did not visit his home to fully assess the impact of the development. However, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties to assess an application. Mr X’s concerns about the safety of the development were not material planning matters and the Council only needed to assess the acceptability of the proposal it received.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission and listed building consent. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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