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

The complaint

1. Dr J complains about the Council’s refusal to acknowledge flaws in the Planning Officer’s report and comments to the Planning Committee. He believes the Council has failed to ensure appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the impact of increased noise and the increased height of the proposed development. He also believes the Council’s Environmental Health Officer is not appropriately qualified to comment on the noise issues with the proposed development. He wants the Council to present the correct information to the Planning Committee and for it to reconsider its decision to grant planning permission.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Dr J’s complaint relates to a planning application to redevelop a site close to his home. He has made written objections about the application and submitted his verbal representations directly to the Council’s Planning and Rights of Way Panel (Planning Committee).
6. 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.
7. A Council Planning Officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the Planning Officer balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
8. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies, comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
9. The Council’s planning committee considered the application in this case. Dr J spoke at the committee meeting objecting to the application. The Council debated the application and having considered all the information the committee unanimously voted to grant planning permission.
10. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any procedural fault with how the decision was made.
11. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The Planning Officer’s report referred to neighbour’s objections, which appear to include those from Dr J. It addressed the concerns raised.
12. It is for planning officers and/or Committee members to decide what weight to give to material considerations. 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.
13. Dr J’s strong disagreement with the Planning Officer’s report and comments to the Planning and Rights of Way Panel is not evidence of fault and does not justify us investigating the matter further. We have no power to force the Council to revoke the permission and reconsider the application as Dr J wants.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman