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 our involvement. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a site near her home fails to comply with legal requirements and is perverse and irrational.
2. She says the Council ignored objections and failed to ensure the plans were correct.
3. Mrs X wants the planning permission revoked and the application reconsidered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.

8. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
9. Councils will grant permission where they consider proposals are in line with relevant planning policies and they find no planning reasons of sufficient weight to justify refusal.
10. The Council received a planning application for change of use of a site near Mrs X’s home to a café.
11. There is a public right of way (PROW) between a canal path and the business park where the café is located. The right of way goes through Mrs X’s property.
12. Mrs X objected to the planning application. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme.
13. Having considered the application the Council decided to grant planning permission.
14. Mrs X complained to the Council saying:
• The planning condition re: opening hours is contradictory and therefore unenforceable.
• The Planning Officer’s report is factually inaccurate and fails to address all the objections she made.
15. The courts made it clear that officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues;
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well experienced of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key material issues.
16. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the planning officer’s report:
• includes a description of the proposal
• details of the relevant national and local policies
• a summary of the objections received; and
• an explanation of why the officer considers the proposal is acceptable.
17. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant information. While Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s decision in this case, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, Mrs X wants the planning permission revoked. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman