Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before deciding to grant planning permission. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, and we do not consider a failure in the complaint process alone causes a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored the objections received on a planning application for a site near his home. He also says the Council failed to consider:
• capacity and installation
• physical access
• the need for housing
• potential future destruction of grade 1 habitat
• coalescence between existing housing
• the almost complete neighbourhood plan
2. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked. If this is not possible, he wants a ban on future development placed on the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application they receive on its own merits and make decisions 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. The number of objections received is not a material planning consideration.
8. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site (sometimes they may not) and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise people’s comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer balancing and weighing up the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development.
9. The Council received a planning application for a new house in the area where Mr X lives.
10. The Council received more than 100 objections to the proposal, including objections from Mr X and the parish council.
11. The planning officer visited the site and prepared a report which included a summary of the objections received, including those from Mr X.
12. The report also detailed:
• the planning history of the site
• relevant local and national policy
• an explanation of why the planning officer considered the proposal acceptable
13. 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 Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision in this case, we have seen no evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
14. Mr X also complains his complaint was considered by the officer responsible for the decision to approve the planning application, who missed deadlines.
15. From the information I have seen, the Council followed its published complaint procedure. I understand failures to meet response deadlines may be frustrating. However, I do not consider this caused sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
16. Finally, we cannot revoke the planning permission, and the Council is required to determine valid planning applications it receives. We cannot require the Council to ban future development of the site.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
• We do not consider Mr X suffered enough personal injustice because of the way the Council considered the complaint to warrant our involvement.
• We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman